- Email: [email protected]
Publishing in ore geology: Reflections on 5 years of Ore Geology Reviews as an IAGOD journal
Ore Geology Reviews 34 (2008) 217–221
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ore Geology Reviews j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / o r e g e o r ev
Editorial
Publishing in ore geology: Reflections on 5 years of Ore Geology Reviews as an IAGOD journal
The end of March 2008 marks the 5th anniversary of the International Association on the Genesis of Ore Deposits (IAGOD) having assumed editorial responsibility for Ore Geology Reviews. This is therefore a perfect opportunity to look back through the past 5 years, 12 volumes and 4405 pages, as well as a host of accepted manuscripts, with the purpose of taking stock of what has been achieved in that time, to consider which manuscripts I have most enjoyed reading and working on, as well as which have already had or are likely to have the most impact, to identify trends, as well as looking ahead to the role of the journal in the years ahead. IAGOD was born in 1963 as an association designed to bridge the political divide between East and West. That, of course, was in an era without Internet, e-mail and all the other global communication possibilities which we take for granted today and which allow us almost instant access to our peers worldwide. It was also a world in which geoscience publishing was is its relative infancy. The number of active researchers in the field of ore deposits has increased by more than 10 times since then, and access to publishing is no longer largely the privilege of a select few in Western Europe and North America. The world mining industry has not only expanded beyond all recognition, but has become a global enterprise employing millions of people. It is therefore no surprise that ore geology research has become global too, with large numbers of people at universities and other research institutions in virtually all countries of the world now involved in discovering the secrets of ore deposits, their genesis and how a deeper understanding can assist exploration. This is perhaps nowhere seen clearer than in China, where researchers in ore geology are producing huge amounts of new information and are important contributors to Ore Geology Reviews; China currently accounts for about one third of all submitted manuscripts. A look at the distribution of origin of manuscripts submitted to the journal shows how other emerging economies, such as India and Brazil, have grown into global players not only as resource producers, but as centres of research, competing on an equal footing with their counterparts in the traditional centres of Europe, North America and Australia. Of course, the huge geopolitical changes seen in the past 20 years have not led to the open global society that many may have hoped for. Political divides across Eurasia have been replaced by an economic divide, and it is here, in particular, that IAGOD's role as a facilitator between persons from different countries has never been greater or more necessary. Our members across Siberia and the states of Central Asia, for example, rightly still complain of not being properly connected with the global research community, through lack of economic resources, even in a world in which sponsored research visits to specialised laboratories have become commonplace or even 0169-1368/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2008.04.002
essential. IAGOD remains committed to these individuals and will continue to assist them to be part of the global community, by enabling access the research tools, notably the information contained within peer-review journals. Scientific publishing has also changed, and continues to change ever faster. We are all encouraged (some might say, obliged) to publish ever larger numbers of papers in order to satisfy the demands of employers and research councils. Competitive grant applications, and the fact that successful grant applications now rank alongside a ‘topranked’ publication list in the arsenal of any researcher when it comes to stepping up the career ladder, have meant that all of us probably spend less time in the field or laboratory actually studying ores than did our counterparts a generation or two ago. We are all undeniably much better informed, and thanks to easy access to the ever-growing knowledge database and travel with increasing frequency to every part of the globe, but does that really make us better observers, or better empowered to write authoritatively about what we see? The sheer number of papers, journal titles and websites reflects the need to publish, but also, alas, has led to an abundance of rather similar papers in different journals, articles reporting incremental updates of a given research project, so-called ‘salami-slicing’ of research output into multiple publications, and, all too often, corrections of earlier interpretations just a short time after the initial research was published. All of this has not only made the task of any editor more complex, but has also made life harder for the reader — who has to now find time in his/her busy schedule to assimilate a huge amount of new information on a regular basis. Everyone is talking about impact factors. These magic numbers now seal the fate of many researchers and have become a dominant theme of conversation whenever or whenever researchers gather. The choice of where to publish is today often more important than what to publish. The ore geology community, like any other, faces tough choices. We are still, by the standards of other research fields, still a rather small group, and none of the leading journals in the field (Ore Geology Reviews, Mineralium Deposita, Economic Geology, Resource Geology) currently qualify as Rank I journals (with impact factors in excess of 2.000). This is despite the fact that these journals all contain large numbers of excellent papers which will make a lasting impact within the ore geology field and beyond. Researchers are being encouraged (I even hear the word ‘ordered’ being used in some institutions) not to publish in journals with low impact factors. Ore Geology Reviews, like its contemporaries, has certainly ‘lost’ some really good papers because of this, but it is encouraging to see that a large part of the community continues to support ‘their’ society-run journals which exist for both authors and readers within the specific
218
Editorial
field. It's hard to put a quantitative measure on the impact these publishing directives are having on our research and publishing landscapes, but ore geologists publishing in the journals that exist for them (and the same can be said for mineralogists and palaeontologists, for example) should feel comfortable with their choice, and need to be more vocal to defend the right to publish in the ‘right’ journals, even if those do not achieve highest impact factor status. This is not the place to write a lengthy critique of the ways in which impact factors are currently calculated (and we must all remember that statistics are only numbers!), but it's worth bearing in mind that good papers in ore geology will often have a much longer shelf life than their counterparts in other areas of the natural sciences. It's a continued source of pride for all of us working on Ore Geology Reviews that papers published 10, 15 or even 20 years ago (e.g., Huston and Large, 1989; Marshall and Gilligan, 1993; Groves et al., 1998) continue to be highly cited. This, of course, is a fact overlooked when looking simply at impact factors. Ore geology is a field that deals with economic resources. These resources will, in many cases, be eventually mined out to build bridges, cars, refrigerators, beer cans etc. Mines may become heritage sites and museums may be built, but the ores may be gone and the geological information stored within those deposits may be gone with them. Ore deposits are therefore perhaps one of the most ephemeral of geological entities and good descriptions and interpretations of ore deposits, made at the time of their exploration and exploitation, remain the lifeblood of published papers in ore geology. Ore Geology Reviews has published numerous such papers during the past 5 years and the value of many of these papers will, we can be reasonably assured, still be real in the future long after the present editorial board has retired! The contents of several special issues stand out as particularly valuable contributions to the knowledge database on the mineral deposits of the world. A collection of papers published in 2005 (Blundell et al., 2005) concluded the highly successful GEODE (Geodynamics and Ore Deposit Evolution in Europe) programme and contained articles summarising the contemporary state of knowledge on most of Europe's most important ore provinces, successfully integrating large volumes of new information from the tectonics, structural geology and geodynamics communities into studies at the ore deposit scale. Importantly, the majority of the articles covered areas of Europe which continue to be the focus of major exploration, where an increased understanding of the regional geology, amply set out in a series of review articles, provides future generations with a framework for new discoveries in the respective provinces. Pertinent examples include the highly-productive and currently intensively-explored belts of Southeastern Europe (Neubauer et al., 2005; Marchev et al., 2005; von Quadt et al., 2005), SW Iberia (Tornos et al., 2005), the Urals (Herrington et al., 2005), the Fennoscandian Shield (Weihed et al., 2005) and the basin-hosted deposits in Europe (Muchez et al., 2005). Two more recent special issues focussing on specific regions also stand out and will be sure to be valuable sources of critical information. One of these, on the mineral deposits of South China (Khin Zaw et al., 2007a) provides an in-depth synopsis of mineral deposits in this part of the world still largely unknown to many researchers outside China. Alongside comprehensive reviews of the nature, diversity of deposit types and metallogenic relations in the region (Khin Zaw et al., 2007b), a review of Tethyan metallogenesis in SW China (Hou et al., 2007), a review of U/Pb geochronology and Hf isotopic signatures of Mesozoic plutons of the Yidun Arc, SW China (Reid et al., 2007), a review of Late Palaeozoic massive sulphide deposits in South China (Gu et al., 2007a) and an overview of skarn gold deposits in China (Chen et al., 2007), the other papers address some of the largest ore deposits in China, including giant ore-forming systems such as Yinshan (Zhang et al., 2007a,b), Jinding (Xue et al., 2007), Woxi (X.X. Gu et al., 2007a,b,c) and Huize (Han et al., 2007).
The gold deposits of the Quadrilátero Ferrífero ore province, Brazil, are covered in a special issue edited by Vial et al. (2007a). Contemporary descriptions of the most important and geologically fascinating mineral deposits in the area, such as Morro Velho (Vial et al., 2007b), Cuiabá (Ribeiro-Rodrigues et al., 2007), São Bento (Pereira et al., 2007), Passagem de Mariana (Vial et al., 2007c), Cauê (Galbiatti et al., 2007) and Raposos (Junqueira et al., 2007) are set against authoritative reviews of lithofacies associations and structural evolution of the Archean Rio das Velhas greenstone belt (Baltazar and Zucchetti, 2007) and a geochronological framework of the Quadrilátero Ferrífero (Noce et al., 2007). Ore Geology Reviews has also had the pleasure to publish the results of international Geoscience Programme (IGCP) projects. IGCP projects further international collaboration by enabling participants to establish new projects and gain access to both facilities and experts. The published results are typically a set of matching complementary results offering a synthesis of the current state of knowledge from a distinctly global perspective. The most recent example (EconomouEliopoulos et al., 2008a) showcases the latest research on ore-forming processes associated with mafic and ultramafic rocks (IGCP-479, ‘Sustainable use of Platinum Group Elements in the 21st Century: Risks and Opportunities’), with contributions dealing with aspects ranging from the Balkan Peninsula (Economou-Eliopoulos et al., 2008b; Tsoupas and Economou-Eliopoulos, 2008), the Russian Urals (Nimis et al., 2008; Tessalina et al., 2008; Zaccarini et al., 2008) and Argentina (Proenza et al., 2008). Apart from regionally-focussed special issues, several special issues dealing with types of deposit or ore-forming processes have also been published in Ore Geology Reviews. ‘Metamorphic processes in ore formation and transformation’ (Cook and Marshall, 2004) and ‘Ores and organic matter’ (Coveney and Pasava, 2004) featured in 2004. A particularly important volume was the one dealing with placer formation and placer minerals (Els and Eriksson, 2006). Alongside critical reviews of placer formation in gravel-bedded rivers (Carling and Breakspear, 2006), the dispersion of magnetite bedload tracer across a gravel point-bar and the development of heavy-mineral placers (Carling et al., 2006) and a study of transport and concentration of detrital gold in foreland basins (Craw et al., 2006), the special issue also contained case studies from localities as far apart as Yukon, New Zealand, Namibia and Bulgaria. This special issue also served to demonstrate the excellent collaboration in the field of ore geology that commonly exists between university-based researchers and those working in industry, as it included papers from researchers within the worlds leading diamond company, DeBeers. Most recently, a special issue dealing with non-sulphide zinc-lead deposits has been published (Gilg et al., 2008). The trend of innovative thematic issues set to be continued with a special issue on the genesis of gem deposits to be published towards the end of 2008. Any look back through recent issues of Ore Geology Reviews shows the vast array of different ways of looking at ore deposits. The various scales too at which a mineral deposit can be studied have all featured in articles published during the past 5 years. Remote sensing using ASTER data has featured in articles by Di Tommaso and Rubinstein (2007) and Landsat ETM+ is used in an article currently in press (Rajesh, 2008). Understanding the mineralogy and ore textures of an ore deposit continues to be critical and aspects of ore mineralogy continue to be well received. Good examples include mineral paragenesis and textures associated with sandstone-hosted rollfront uranium deposits in NW China (Min et al., 2005), telluride assemblages from Cu–Ni–PGE prospects in the Eastern Desert of Egypt (Helmy, 2005), the mineralogical evolution of indium in high grade tin-polymetallic hydrothermal veins (Murao et al., 2008), or understanding glide systems of hematite single crystals (Siemes et al., 2008). Other authors have used innovative techniques, often in combination, to achieve new conclusions on how ore deposits may actually form. Papers by Wagner et al. (2004) dealing with laser microprobe sulphur
Editorial
isotope analysis of arsenopyrite, by Hein et al. (2006) linking mineralogical and fluid inclusion paragenetic studies, or by Grieco et al. (2007) on platinum group element zoning and the mineralogy of chromitites, illustrate the importance of small-scale mineralogical studies. A small number of high-quality experimental studies too have been made a welcome contribution to the table of contents, e.g., a thermodynamic study on hydrothermal thallium mineralization up to 300 °C, by Xiong (2007). Novel ways in which mathematical, statistical and geophysical information can be used in mineral exploration have appeared regularly in Ore Geology Reviews. The usefulness of mathematical or statistical methods in exploration has been expounded by, for example, Kreuzer et al. (2007), who used geological, geophysical and numerical analyses to constrain ore controls in the Charters Towers goldfield, NE Australia, or Ford and Blenkinsop (2008) who combined fractal analysis of mineral deposit clustering with weights of evidence to evaluate patterns of mineralization in the same area. Cheng (2007) mapped singularities within stream sediment geochemical data for prediction of undiscovered mineral deposits in Gejiu, Yunnan Province, China and application of the underlying principles by, among others, Porwal et al. (2006) show how relevant such studies are. Innovative use regional-scale GIS to the metallogeny of NW Argentina enabled Roy et al. (2006) to show how effective the method is and how it may be used to define prospective exploration areas, as Billa et al. (2004) had done in the central Andes. Zhang et al. (2007a,b) demonstrated the application of numerical modelling of deformation and fluid flow in the Shuikoushan district, South China. Several papers have featured innovative ways of looking at ore forming processes, be it the role of discontinuous magma inputs in felsic magma and ore generation (Vigneresse, 2007), biogenic and petroleum-related ore-forming processes in Dongsheng uranium deposit, NW China (Cai et al., 2007) or the formation of banded iron-formations from black smokers and density currents (Lascelles, 2007). Even if controversial, it is critical that new ideas be aired and discussed and if I, as Editor-in-Chief, have been disappointed during the past 5 years, it has been the relative paucity of ‘discussions’ received from individuals who may wish to correct published papers or discuss the validity or accuracy of the contained ideas. The global nature of ore geology today is emphasized by the sheer number of countries and territories from which mineral deposits have been described during the past 5 years, often for the first time in English. China has been particularly well represented in this number, with numerous papers dealing with descriptions of major new mineralization in frontier areas of the Chinese Tianshan, e.g., Kanggur (Zhang et al., 2003), Sawaya'erdun (Liu et al., 2007), Tianger (Zhu et al., 2007) and Tuwu (Han et al., 2006) or Tibet, e.g., Daduhe (Li et al., 2007) or Gangdese (Qu et al., 2007) featuring heavily. This trend is surely set to continue in the years ahead. Chinese colleagues have also sought to deliver a number of innovative papers that show the rapidly expanding depth and breadth of ore geology research in that country. Personal selections of important papers would include the description of copper, gold and silver enrichment in ore mylonites in the Hongtoushan VHMS deposit (Gu et al., 2007a,b,c) and molybdenite Re–Os and albite 40Ar/39Ar dating of Cu–Au–Mo and magnetite porphyry systems in the Yangtze River valley (Mao et al., 2006). Other recent papers have sought to provide state-of-the-art syntheses of some of the worlds most economically-significant ore provinces, e.g., the Yilgarn Craton of Western Australia (Duuring et al., 2007), or regions of the world which may yet be set to be important future producers, given the number of significant new discoveries (e.g., Turkey; Yigit, 2006). Particularly interesting, and important to understanding the underlying principles involved in forming giant ore provinces are those studies comparing and contrasting provinces, e.g., Kalgoorlie in Australia and Timmins–Porcupine in Canada (Bateman and Bierlein, 2007) or massive sulphide deposits of the Bathurst Mining Camp, N.B., Canada, compared with those of the Iberian pyrite belt (Solomon, 2008). Similarly, we are
219
delighted to publish new models for well-known ore districts where, apparently, there is still much opportunity for new ideas, e.g., Outokumpu, Finland (Peltonen et al., 2008) or Broken Hill, N.S.W., Australia (Spry et al., 2008-this issue). It is perhaps not surprising that some of the most cited papers in Ore Geology Reviews have been either those which provide new insights into ore deposits across a significantly-sized area (e.g., Tornos, 2006; Hoatson et al., 2006), those which provide critical data on giant ore-forming systems or provinces, e.g., Ertsberg (Mathur et al., 2005) or the Jiandong Peninsula (Mao et al., 2008), or those which overlap with, or are of interest to researchers from other areas of the geosciences, notably petrology or geodynamics (e.g., Yang et al., 2003; Zhao et al., 2004). There is hardly a mineral commodity that has not been covered by the journal in the past 5 years. Deposits of precious- (gold, PGE), basemetals (Cu, Zn, Pb, Ni) and Fe remain a mainstay, and other articles have covered deposits of antimony, uranium and rare-earth elements, but an increasingly large number of submitted manuscripts have dealt with the less common metals. Germanium, indium, gallium and scandium, in particular, have featured strongly, particularly in a special issue on electronic metals (Ore Geology Reviews vol. 28, p. 1– 146). The review by Wood and Samson (2006) of the aqueous geochemistry of Ga, Ge, In and Sc, and case examples of In-bearing mineralization in the German Erzgebirge (Seifert and Sandmann, 2006) and Mount Pleasant, New Brunswick, Canada (Sinclair et al., 2006), Ge-mineralisation in Namibia (Melcher et al., 2006), and Scmineralisation in Sn–W deposits (Kempe and Wolf, 2006) are among the most cited and downloaded papers we have published in recent years. Together with subsequent papers, including the authoritative review ‘Metallogenesis of germanium - a review’ (Höll et al., 2007), these represent a must ‘first stop’ read for anyone embarking on research on these increasingly sought-after commodities. The journal has chosen to interpret ore geology not only as the study of metalliferous mineral deposits, but also to include a selection of the best submitted papers on other resources, notably those of industrial minerals. Articles have included those on alunite, bentonite, fluorite–barite, kaolinite, wollastonite and zeolite deposits and a series of thematic papers on industrial minerals appeared in 2007 (Christidis, 2006). A state-of-the-art review of marine minerals is presently in press (Rona, 2008). A theme that should concern anyone publishing their results is the citation of websites. This is now becoming commonplace, especially in the field of ore geology. Mining companies now publish copious information on their websites and this trend is to be very much welcomed, as the published-to-web statistical data, maps, photographs and descriptions can be a superb source of up-to-date information — especially when most of it remains confined to otherwise unpublished company reports. Authors have found that citation of web-based information on mineral deposits is a convenient way to quote relevant recent exploration data, tonnage and grade statistics and other information not otherwise readily found in the public domain. A problem can, however, arise in that this web-based information can rapidly be lost, as the pages are updated or moved, or often closed altogether as the companies move on to other exploration areas, or are taken over, merged or simply no longer exist. Not infrequently, the website is no longer available by the time the manuscript which cites it has been submitted for publication. Authors need to check if the information is not available elsewhere (in an unpublished company report, for example) and, in any case, should always provide the date on which the website had been accessed. The Internet places a huge amount of information at the fingertips of a large part of humanity and it is really encouraging to see how net access is becoming increasingly available to those in the world's poorer countries. As welcome as this development is, however, it throws up at least two issues of concern to anyone in research or publishing. Firstly, there is quality control of electronic information. Unfortunately, among the volume of information in cyberspace — interspersed with a great
220
Editorial
deal of excellent authoritative information, there are also a number of websites that contain content that is less than accurate, and in some cases, just plain wrong or misleading. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, but the mixture of pseudoscience and propaganda to be found on the net, can be a real trap for the students of tomorrow. This is often compounded by the sheer number of dead ends, old sites (which are available in updated form elsewhere) and links that don't work; this is an issue that should concern us all. Ore Geology Reviews continually seeks new manuscripts and looks forward to its future contributions on the knowledge on mineral deposits. The journal will continue to consider all types of submissions, particularly those located in parts of the world hitherto poorly described in the English language literature. As the title suggests, however, Ore Geology Reviews will emphasise comprehensive interdisciplinary reviews of ore deposits, whether these reviews cover geographic regions or deposits viewed from a genetic perspective. Such reviews have been a strength of the journal during its history and will continue, in part, to differentiate our journal from our sister journals in the field, which focus primarily on methodical cutting-edge research or exploration successes leading to new deposit discoveries. Acknowledgements Conversations with many members of the editorial board of Ore Geology Reviews have helped shape some of the ideas in this article. The comments of Ore Geology Reviews Associate Editor Reimar Seltmann greatly assisted preparation of the text. Thoughts and opinions of the publishers at Elsevier, particularly Kim-Lan Thonus (Publishing Editor, Geosciences) and Friso Veenstra (Publisher, Geosciences) have helped me understand some of the issues facing scientific publishing today. Lisa Geijtenbeek-Colledge (Publishing Information Manager at Elsevier) kindly provided various sets of statistical data and helped me understand some of the patterns highlighted here. Lastly, I wish to personally thank Karl H. Wolf, the first editor of Ore Geology Reviews (starting from 1986), whom I had the good fortune to meet in 2007, for his words of encouragement and for his long-sighted vision of creating the journal and determination to see it succeed. References Baltazar, O.F., Zucchetti, M., 2007. Lithofacies associations and structural evolution of the Archean Rio das Velhas greenstone belt, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Brazil: a review of the setting of gold deposits. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 471–499. Bateman, R., Bierlein, F.P., 2007. On Kalgoorlie (Australia), Timmins-Porcupine (Canada), and factors in intense gold mineralization. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 187–206. Billa, M., Cassard, D., Lips, A.L.W., Bouchot, V., Tourlière, B., Stein, G., Guillou-Frottier, L., 2004. Predicting gold-rich epithermal and porphyry systems in the central Andes with a continental-scale metallogenic GIS. Ore Geology Reviews 25, 39–67. Special Issue on Geodynamics and Ore Deposit Evolution in Europe. In: Blundell, D., Arndt, N., Cobbold, P.R., Heinrich, C. (Eds.), Ore Geology Reviews 27, 1–350. Cai, C.F., Li, H.T., Qin, M.K., Luo, X.R., Wang, F.Y., Ou, G.X., 2007. Biogenic and petroleumrelated ore-forming processes in Dongsheng uranium deposit, NW China. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 262–274. Carling, P.A., Breakspear, R.M.D., 2006. Placer formation in gravel-bedded rivers: a review. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 377–401. Carling, P.A., Orr, H., Kelsey, A., 2006. The dispersion of magnetite bedload tracer across a gravel point-bar and the development of heavy-mineral placers. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 402–416. Chen, Y.J., Chen, H.Y., Khin Zaw, Pirajno, F., Zhang, Z.J., 2007. Geodynamic settings and tectonic model of skarn gold deposits in China: an overview. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 139–169. Cheng, Q.M., 2007. Mapping singularities with stream sediment geochemical data for prediction of undiscovered mineral deposits in Gejiu, Yunnan Province, China. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 314–324. Christidis, G.E. (Ed.), 2006. Industrial minerals - a series of thematic papers. Ore Geology Reviews, vol. 29, pp. 103–175. Cook, N.J., Marshall, B., 2004. Metamorphic processes in ore formation and transformation: a thematic series of papers. Ore Geology Reviews 24, 169–372. CoveneyJr. Jr., R.M., Pasava, J. (Eds.), 2004. Ores and organic matter. Ore Geology Reviews, vol. 24, pp. 1–167. Craw, D., Youngson, J.H., Leckie, D.A., 2006. Transport and concentration of detrital gold in foreland basins. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 417–430. Di Tommaso, I., Rubinstein, N., 2007. Hydrothermal alteration mapping using ASTER data in the Infiernillo porphyry deposit, Argentina. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 275–290.
Duuring, P., Cassidy, K.F., Hagemann, S.G., 2007. Granitoid-associated orogenic, intrusion-related, and porphyry style metal deposits in the Archean Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 157–186. Economou-Eliopoulos, M., Garuti, G., Mungall, J. (Eds.), 2008a. Ore-forming processes associated with mafic and ultramafic rocks. Ore Geology Reviews, vol. 33, pp. 1–114. Economou-Eliopoulos, M., Eliopoulos, D.G., Chryssoulis, S., 2008b. A comparison of high-Au massive sulfide ores hosted in ophiolite complexes of the Balkan Peninsula with modern analogues: genetic significance. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 81–100. Els, G., Eriksson, P. (Eds.), 2006. Placer formation and placer minerals. Ore Geology Reviews. vol. 28, vol. 28, pp. 373–548. Ford, A., Blenkinsop, T.G., 2008. Combining fractal analysis of mineral deposit clustering with weights of evidence to evaluate patterns of mineralization: application to copper deposits of the Mount Isa Inlier, NW Queensland, Australia. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 435–450. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2007.01.004. Galbiatti, H.F., Fonseca, M.A., Pereira, M.C., Polônia, J.C., 2007. Structural control of Au– Pd mineralization (Jacutinga): an example from the Cauê Mine, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Brazil. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 614–628. Gilg, H.A., Boni, M., Cook, N.J. (Eds.), 2008. A Special Issue devoted to Nonsulfide Zn–Pb Deposits. Ore Geology Reviews, vol. 33, pp. 115–210. Grieco, G., Diella, V., Chaplygina, N.L., Savelieva, G.N., 2007. Platinum group elements zoning and mineralogy of chromitites from the cumulate sequence of the Nurali massif (Southern Urals, Russia). Ore Geology Reviews 30, 257–276. Groves, D.I., Goldfarb, R.J., Gebre-Mariam, M., Hagemann, S.G., Robert, F., 1998. Orogenic gold deposits: a proposed classification in the context of their crustal distribution and relationship to other gold deposit types. Ore Geology Reviews 13, 7–27. Gu, L.X., Khin Zaw, Hu, W.X., Zhang, K.J., Ni, P., He, J.X., Xu, X.T., Lu, J.J., Lin, C.M., 2007a. Distinctive features of Late Palaeozoic massive sulphide deposits in South China. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 107–138. Gu, L.X., Zheng, Y.C., Tang, X.Q., Khin Zaw, Della-Pasque, F., Wu, C.Z., Tian, Z.M., Lu, J.J., Ni, P., Li, X., Yang, F., Wang, X.W., 2007b. Copper, gold and silver enrichment in ore mylonites within massive sulphide orebodies at Hongtoushan VHMS deposit, N.E. China. Ore Geology Reviews 30, 1–29. Gu, X.X., Schulz, O., Vavtar, F., Liu, J.M., Zheng, M.H., Fu, S.H., 2007c. Rare earth element geochemistry of the Woxi W–Sb–Au deposit, Hunan Province, South China. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 319–336. Han, C.M., Xiao, W.J., Zhao, G.C., Mao, J.W., Yang, J.M., Wang, Z.L., Yan, Z., Mao, Q., 2006. Geological characteristics and genesis of the Tuwu porphyry copper deposit, Hami, Xinjiang, Central Asia. Ore Geology Reviews 29, 77–94. Han, R.S., Liu, C.Q., Huang, Z.L., Chen, J., Ma, D.Y., Lei, L., Ma, G.S., 2007. Geological features and origin of the Huize carbonate-hosted Zn–Pb–(Ag) District, Yunnan, South China. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 360–383. Hein, K.A.A., Khin Zaw, Mernagh, T.P., 2006. Linking mineral and fluid inclusion paragenetic studies: The Batman deposit, Mt. Todd (Yimuyn Manjerr) goldfield, Australia. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 180–200. Helmy, H.M., 2005. Melonite group minerals and other tellurides from three Cu–Ni–PGE prospects, Eastern Desert, Egypt. Ore Geology Reviews 26, 305–324. Herrington, R., Maslennikov, V., Zaykov, V., Seravkin, I., Kosarev, A., Buschmann, B., Orgeval, J.-J., Holland, N., Tesalina, S., Nimis, P., Armstrong, R., 2005. Classification of VMS deposits: Lessons from the South Uralides. Ore Geology Reviews 27, 203–237. Hoatson, D.M., Jaireth, S., Jaques, A.L., 2006. Nickel sulfide deposits in Australia: characteristics, resources, and potential. Ore Geology Reviews 29, 177–241. Höll, R., Kling, M., Schroll, E., 2007. Metallogenesis of germanium — a review. Ore Geology Reviews 30, 145–180. Huston, D.L., Large, R.R., 1989. A chemical model for the concentration of gold in volcanogenic massive sulphide deposits. Ore Geology Reviews 4, 171–200. Hou, Z.Q., Khin Zaw, Pan, G.T., Mo, X.X., Xu, Q., Hu, Y.Z., Li, X.Z., 2007. Sanjiang Tethyan metallogenesis in S.W. China: tectonic setting, metallogenic epochs and deposit types. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 48–87. Junqueira, P.A., Lobato, L.M., Ladeira, E.A., Simões, E.J.M., 2007. Structural control and hydrothermal alteration at the BIF-hosted Raposos lode-gold deposit, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Brazil. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 629–650. Kempe, U., Wolf, D., 2006. Anomalously high Sc contents in ore minerals from Sn–W deposits: Possible economic significance and genetic implications. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 103–122. Khin Zaw, S.G., Peters, Cook, N.J., Hou, Z.Q. (Eds.), 2007a. Mineral deposits of South China. Ore Geology Reviews, vol. 31, pp. 1–384. Khin Zaw, Peters, S.G., Cromie, P., Burrett, C., Hou, Z.Q., 2007b. Nature, diversity of deposit types and metallogenic relations of South China. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 3–47. Kreuzer, O.P., Blenkinsop, T.G., Morrison, R.J., Peters, S.G., 2007. Ore controls in the Charters Towers goldfield, NE Australia: constraints from geological, geophysical and numerical analyses. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 37–80. Lascelles, D.F., 2007. Black smokers and density currents: a uniformitarian model for the genesis of banded iron-formations. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 381–411. Li, X.F., Mao, J.W., Wang, C.Z., Watanabe, Y., 2007. The Daduhe gold field at the eastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau: He, Ar, S, O, and H isotopic data and their metallogenic implications. Ore Geology Reviews 30, 244–256. Liu, J.J., Zheng, M.H., Cook, N.J., Long, X.R., Deng, J., Zhai, Y.S., 2007. Geological and geochemical characteristics of the Sawaya'erdun gold deposit, southwestern Chinese Tianshan. Orte Geology Reviews 32, 125–156. Mao, J.W., Wang, Y., Lehmann, B., Yu, J.J., Du, A., Mei, Y.X., Li, Y.F., Zang, W.S., Stein, H.J., Zhou, T., 2006. Molybdenite Re–Os and albite 40Ar/39Ar dating of Cu–Au–Mo and magnetite porphyry systems in the Yangtze River valley and metallogenic implications. Ore Geology Reviews 29, 307–324. Mao, J.W., Wang, Y., Li, H., Pirajno, F., Zhang, Z.Q., Wang, R., 2008. The relationship ofmantle- derived fluids to gold metallogenesis in the Jiaodong Peninsula: evidence
Editorial from D–O–C–S isotope systematics. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 361–381. doi:10.1016/j. oregeorev.2007.01.003. Marchev, P., Kaiser-Rohrmeier, M., Heinrich, C., Ovtcharova, M., von Quadt, A., Raicheva, R., 2005. Hydrothermal ore deposits related to post-orogenic extensional magmatism and core complex formation: the Rhodope Massif of Bulgaria and Greece. Ore Geology Reviews 27, 53–89. Marshall, B., Gilligan, L.B., 1993. Remobilization, syn-tectonic processes and massive sulphide deposits. Ore Geology Reviews 8, 39–64. Mathur, R., Titley, S., Ruiz, J., Gibbins, S., Friehauf, K., 2005. A Re–Os isotope study of sedimentary rocks and copper–gold ores from the Ertsberg District, West Papua, Indonesia. Ore Geology Reviews 26, 207–226. Melcher, M., Oberthür, T., Rammlmair, D., 2006. Geochemical and mineralogical distribution of germanium in the Khusib Springs Cu–Zn–Pb–Ag sulfide deposit, Otavi Mountain Land, Namibia. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 32–56. Min, M.Z., Chen, J., Wang, J.P., Wei, G.H., Fayek, M., 2005. Mineral paragenesis and textures associated with sandstone-hosted roll-front uranium deposits, NW China. Ore Geology Reviews 26, 51–69. Muchez, P., Heijlen, W., Banks, D., Blundell, D., Boni, M., Grandia, F., 2005. Extensional tectonics and the timing and formation of basin-hosted deposits in Europe. Ore Geology Reviews 27, 241–267. Murao, S., Deb, M., Furuno, M., 2008. Mineralogical evolution of indium in high grade tin-polymetallic hydrothermal veins — a comparative study from Tosham, Haryana state, India and Goka, Naegi district, Japan. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 490–504. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2007.02.004. Neubauer, F., Lips, A., Kouzmanov, K., Lexa, J., Ivăşcanu, P., 2005. Subduction, slab detachment and mineralization: the Neogene in the Apuseni Mountains and Carpathians. Ore Geology Reviews 27, 13–44. Nimis, P., Zaykov, V.V., Omenetto, P., Melekestseva, I.Yu., Tesalina, S.G., Orgeval, J.-J., 2008. Peculiarities of some mafic–ultramafic- and ultramafic-hosted massive sulfide deposits from the Main Uralian Fault Zone, southern Urals. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 49–69. Noce, C.M., Tassinari, C., Lobato, L.M., 2007. Geochronological framework of the Quadrilátero Ferrífero, with emphasis on the age of gold mineralization hosted in Archean greenstone belts. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 500–510. Peltonen, P., Kontinen, A., Huhma, H., Kuronen, U., 2008. Outokumpu revisited: New mineral deposit model for the mantle peridotite-associated Cu–Co–Zn–Ni–Ag–Au sulphide deposits. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 559–617. doi:10.1016/j. oregeorev.2007.07.002. Pereira, S.L.M., Lobato, L.M., Ferreira, J.E., Jardim, E.C., 2007. Nature and origin of the BIFhosted São Bento gold deposit, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Brazil, with special emphasis on structural controls. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 571–595. Porwal, A., Carranza, E.J.M., Hale, M., 2006. Tectonostratigraphy and base-metal mineralization controls, Aravalli province (western India): new interpretations from geophysical data analysis. Ore Geology Reviews 29, 287–306. Proenza, J.A., Zaccarini, F., Escayola, M., Cábana, C., Schalamuk, A., Garuti, G., 2008. Composition and textures of chromite and platinum-group minerals in chromitites of the western ophiolitic belt from Pampean Ranges of Córdoba, Argentina. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 32–48. Qu, X.M., Hou, Z.Q., Khin Zaw, Li, Y.G., 2007. Characteristics and genesis of Gangdese porphyry copper deposits in the southern Tibetan Plateau: preliminary geochemical and geochronological results. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 205–223. Rajesh, H.M., 2008. Mapping Proterozoic unconformity-related uranium deposits in the Rockhole area, Northern Territory, Australia using landsat ETM+. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 382–396. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2007.02.003. Reid, A., Wilson, C.J.L., Shun, L., Pearson, N., Belousova, E., 2007. Mesozoic plutons of the Yidun Arc, SW China: U/Pb geochronology and Hf isotopic signature. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 88–106. Ribeiro-Rodrigues, L.C., de Oliveira, C.G., Friedrich, G., 2007. The Archean BIF-hosted Cuiabá Gold deposit, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 543–570. Rona, P.A., 2008. The changing vision of marine minerals. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 618–666. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2007.03.006. Roy, R., Cassard, D., Cobbold, P.R., Rossello, E.A., Billa, M., Bailly, L., Lips, A.L.W., 2006. Predictive mapping for copper–gold magmatic-hydrothermal systems in NW Argentina: Use of a regional-scale GIS, application of an expert-guided data-driven approach, and comparison with results from a continental-scale GIS. Ore Geology Reviews 29, 260–286. Seifert, T., Sandmann, D., 2006. Mineralogy and geochemistry of indium-bearing polymetallic vein-type deposits: Implications for host minerals from the Freiberg district, Eastern Erzgebirge, Germany. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 1–31. Siemes, H., Klingenberg, B., Rybacki, E., Naumann, M., Schäfer, W., Jansen, E., Kunze, K., 2008. Glide systems of hematite single crystals in deformation experiments. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 255–279. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2007.03.007. SinclairW.D., W.D., KooimanG.J.A., G.J.A., MartinD.A., D.A., KjarsgaardI.M., I.M., 2006. Geology, geochemistry and mineralogy of indium resources at Mount Pleasant, New Brunswick, Canada. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 123–145. Solomon, M., 2008. Brine pool deposition for the Zn–Pb–Cu massive sulphide deposits of the Bathurst mining camp, New Brunswick, Canada. I. Comparisons with the Iberian pyrite belt. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 329–351. doi:10.1016/j. oregeorev.2007.04.001.
221
Spry, PG., Plimer, I.R., Teale, G.S., 2008. Did the giant Broken Hill (Australia) Zn–Pb–Ag deposit melt? Ore Geology Reviews 34, 223–241 (this issue). doi:10.1016/j. oregeorev.2007.11.001. Tessalina, S.G., Bourdon, B., Maslennikov, V.V., Orgeval, J.-J., Birck, Gannoun, A., Capmas, F., Allègre, C.-J., 2008. Osmium isotope distribution within the Palaeozoic Alexandrinka seafloor hydrothermal system in the Southern Urals, Russia. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 70–80. Tornos, F., 2006. Environment of formation and styles of volcanogenic massive sulfides: the Iberian Pyrite Belt. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 259–307. Tornos, F., Casquet, C., Relvas, J.M.R.S., 2005. Transpressional tectonics, lower crust decoupling and intrusion of deep mafic sills: a model for the unusual metallogenesis of SW Iberia. Ore Geology Reviews 27, 133–163. Tsoupas, G., Economou-Eliopoulos, M., 2008. High PGE contents and extremely abundant PGE-minerals hosted in chromitites from the Veria ophiolite complex, northern Greece. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 3–19. Vial, D.S., Groves, D.I., Cook, N.J., Lobato, L.M. (Eds.), 2007a. Special issue on gold deposits of Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Ore Geology Reviews, vol. 33, pp. 469–688. Vial, D.S., DeWitt, E., Lobato, L.M., Thorman, C.H., 2007b. The geology of the Morro Velho gold deposit in the Archean Rio das Velhas greenstone belt, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Brazil. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 511–542. Vial, D.S., Duarte, B.P., Fuzikawa, K., Vieira, M.B.H., 2007c. An epigenetic origin for the Passagem de Mariana gold deposit, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 596–613. Vigneresse, J.L., 2007. The role of discontinuous magma inputs in felsic magma and ore generation. Ore Geology Reviews 30, 181–216. von Quadt, A., Moritz, R., Peytcheva, I., Heinrich, C.A., 2005. Geochronology and geodynamics of Late Cretaceous magmatism and Cu–Au mineralization in the Panagyurishte region of the Apuseni–Banat–Timok–Srednogorie belt, Bulgaria. Ore Geology Reviews 27, 95–126. Wagner, T., Boyce, A.J., Jonsson, E., Fallick, A.E., 2004. Laser microprobe sulphur isotope analysis of arsenopyrite: experimental calibration and application to the Boliden Au–Cu–As massive sulphide deposit. Ore Geology Reviews 25, 311–325. Weihed, P., Arndt, N., Billström, K., Duchesne, J.-C., Eilu, P., Martinsson, O., Papunen, H., Lahtinen, R., 2005. Precambrian geodynamics and ore formation: the Fennoscandian Shield. Ore Geology Reviews 27, 273–322. Wood, S.A., Samson, I.M., 2006. The aqueous geochemistry of gallium, germanium, indium and scandium. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 57–102. Xiong, Y.L., 2007. Hydrothermal thallium mineralization up to 300 °C: a thermodynamic approach. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 291–313. Xue, C.J., Zeng, R., Liu, S., Chi, G.X., Qing, H., Chen, Y.C., Yang, J.M., Wang, D.H., 2007. Geologic, fluid inclusion and isotopic characteristics of the Jinding Zn–Pb deposit, western Yunnan, South China: a review. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 337–359. Yang, J.H., Wu, F.W., Wilde, S.A., 2003. A review of the geodynamic setting of large-scale Late Mesozoic gold mineralization in the North China Craton: an association with lithospheric thinning. Ore Geology Reviews 23, 125–152. Yigit, O., 2006. Gold in Turkey — a missing link in Tethyan metallogeny. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 147–179. Zaccarini, F., Pushkarev, E., Garuti, G., 2008. Platinum-group element mineralogy and geochemistry of chromitite of the Kluchevskoy ophiolite complex, central Urals (Russia). Ore Geology Reviews 33, 20–30. Zhang, L.C., Shen, Y.C., Ji, J.S., 2003. Characteristics and genesis of Kanggur gold deposit in the eastern Tianshan mountains, NW China: evidence from geology, isotope distribution and chronology. Ore Geology Reviews 23, 71–90. Zhang, D.H., Xu, G.J., Zhang, W.H., Golding, S.D., 2007a. High salinity fluid inclusions in the Yinshan polymetallic deposit from the Le–De metallogenic belt in Jiangxi Province, China: their origin and implications for ore genesis. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 247–260. Zhang, Y.H., Lin, G., Roberts, P., Ord, A., 2007b. Numerical modelling of deformation and fluid flow in the Shuikoushan district, Hunan Province, South China. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 261–278. Zhao, Z.F., Zheng, Y.F., Wei, C.S., Gong, B., 2004. Temporal relationship between granite cooling and hydrothermal uranium mineralization at Dalongshan in China: a combined radiometric and oxygen isotopic study. Ore Geology Reviews 25, 221–236. Zhu, Y.F., Zhou, J., Zeng, Y.S., 2007. The Tianger (Bingdaban) shear zone hosted gold deposit, west Tianshan, NW China: petrographic and geochemical characteristics. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 337–365.
Nigel J. Cook Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Boks 1172 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway E-mail address: [email protected]. 8 April 2008
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ore Geology Reviews j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / o r e g e o r ev
Editorial
Publishing in ore geology: Reflections on 5 years of Ore Geology Reviews as an IAGOD journal
The end of March 2008 marks the 5th anniversary of the International Association on the Genesis of Ore Deposits (IAGOD) having assumed editorial responsibility for Ore Geology Reviews. This is therefore a perfect opportunity to look back through the past 5 years, 12 volumes and 4405 pages, as well as a host of accepted manuscripts, with the purpose of taking stock of what has been achieved in that time, to consider which manuscripts I have most enjoyed reading and working on, as well as which have already had or are likely to have the most impact, to identify trends, as well as looking ahead to the role of the journal in the years ahead. IAGOD was born in 1963 as an association designed to bridge the political divide between East and West. That, of course, was in an era without Internet, e-mail and all the other global communication possibilities which we take for granted today and which allow us almost instant access to our peers worldwide. It was also a world in which geoscience publishing was is its relative infancy. The number of active researchers in the field of ore deposits has increased by more than 10 times since then, and access to publishing is no longer largely the privilege of a select few in Western Europe and North America. The world mining industry has not only expanded beyond all recognition, but has become a global enterprise employing millions of people. It is therefore no surprise that ore geology research has become global too, with large numbers of people at universities and other research institutions in virtually all countries of the world now involved in discovering the secrets of ore deposits, their genesis and how a deeper understanding can assist exploration. This is perhaps nowhere seen clearer than in China, where researchers in ore geology are producing huge amounts of new information and are important contributors to Ore Geology Reviews; China currently accounts for about one third of all submitted manuscripts. A look at the distribution of origin of manuscripts submitted to the journal shows how other emerging economies, such as India and Brazil, have grown into global players not only as resource producers, but as centres of research, competing on an equal footing with their counterparts in the traditional centres of Europe, North America and Australia. Of course, the huge geopolitical changes seen in the past 20 years have not led to the open global society that many may have hoped for. Political divides across Eurasia have been replaced by an economic divide, and it is here, in particular, that IAGOD's role as a facilitator between persons from different countries has never been greater or more necessary. Our members across Siberia and the states of Central Asia, for example, rightly still complain of not being properly connected with the global research community, through lack of economic resources, even in a world in which sponsored research visits to specialised laboratories have become commonplace or even 0169-1368/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2008.04.002
essential. IAGOD remains committed to these individuals and will continue to assist them to be part of the global community, by enabling access the research tools, notably the information contained within peer-review journals. Scientific publishing has also changed, and continues to change ever faster. We are all encouraged (some might say, obliged) to publish ever larger numbers of papers in order to satisfy the demands of employers and research councils. Competitive grant applications, and the fact that successful grant applications now rank alongside a ‘topranked’ publication list in the arsenal of any researcher when it comes to stepping up the career ladder, have meant that all of us probably spend less time in the field or laboratory actually studying ores than did our counterparts a generation or two ago. We are all undeniably much better informed, and thanks to easy access to the ever-growing knowledge database and travel with increasing frequency to every part of the globe, but does that really make us better observers, or better empowered to write authoritatively about what we see? The sheer number of papers, journal titles and websites reflects the need to publish, but also, alas, has led to an abundance of rather similar papers in different journals, articles reporting incremental updates of a given research project, so-called ‘salami-slicing’ of research output into multiple publications, and, all too often, corrections of earlier interpretations just a short time after the initial research was published. All of this has not only made the task of any editor more complex, but has also made life harder for the reader — who has to now find time in his/her busy schedule to assimilate a huge amount of new information on a regular basis. Everyone is talking about impact factors. These magic numbers now seal the fate of many researchers and have become a dominant theme of conversation whenever or whenever researchers gather. The choice of where to publish is today often more important than what to publish. The ore geology community, like any other, faces tough choices. We are still, by the standards of other research fields, still a rather small group, and none of the leading journals in the field (Ore Geology Reviews, Mineralium Deposita, Economic Geology, Resource Geology) currently qualify as Rank I journals (with impact factors in excess of 2.000). This is despite the fact that these journals all contain large numbers of excellent papers which will make a lasting impact within the ore geology field and beyond. Researchers are being encouraged (I even hear the word ‘ordered’ being used in some institutions) not to publish in journals with low impact factors. Ore Geology Reviews, like its contemporaries, has certainly ‘lost’ some really good papers because of this, but it is encouraging to see that a large part of the community continues to support ‘their’ society-run journals which exist for both authors and readers within the specific
218
Editorial
field. It's hard to put a quantitative measure on the impact these publishing directives are having on our research and publishing landscapes, but ore geologists publishing in the journals that exist for them (and the same can be said for mineralogists and palaeontologists, for example) should feel comfortable with their choice, and need to be more vocal to defend the right to publish in the ‘right’ journals, even if those do not achieve highest impact factor status. This is not the place to write a lengthy critique of the ways in which impact factors are currently calculated (and we must all remember that statistics are only numbers!), but it's worth bearing in mind that good papers in ore geology will often have a much longer shelf life than their counterparts in other areas of the natural sciences. It's a continued source of pride for all of us working on Ore Geology Reviews that papers published 10, 15 or even 20 years ago (e.g., Huston and Large, 1989; Marshall and Gilligan, 1993; Groves et al., 1998) continue to be highly cited. This, of course, is a fact overlooked when looking simply at impact factors. Ore geology is a field that deals with economic resources. These resources will, in many cases, be eventually mined out to build bridges, cars, refrigerators, beer cans etc. Mines may become heritage sites and museums may be built, but the ores may be gone and the geological information stored within those deposits may be gone with them. Ore deposits are therefore perhaps one of the most ephemeral of geological entities and good descriptions and interpretations of ore deposits, made at the time of their exploration and exploitation, remain the lifeblood of published papers in ore geology. Ore Geology Reviews has published numerous such papers during the past 5 years and the value of many of these papers will, we can be reasonably assured, still be real in the future long after the present editorial board has retired! The contents of several special issues stand out as particularly valuable contributions to the knowledge database on the mineral deposits of the world. A collection of papers published in 2005 (Blundell et al., 2005) concluded the highly successful GEODE (Geodynamics and Ore Deposit Evolution in Europe) programme and contained articles summarising the contemporary state of knowledge on most of Europe's most important ore provinces, successfully integrating large volumes of new information from the tectonics, structural geology and geodynamics communities into studies at the ore deposit scale. Importantly, the majority of the articles covered areas of Europe which continue to be the focus of major exploration, where an increased understanding of the regional geology, amply set out in a series of review articles, provides future generations with a framework for new discoveries in the respective provinces. Pertinent examples include the highly-productive and currently intensively-explored belts of Southeastern Europe (Neubauer et al., 2005; Marchev et al., 2005; von Quadt et al., 2005), SW Iberia (Tornos et al., 2005), the Urals (Herrington et al., 2005), the Fennoscandian Shield (Weihed et al., 2005) and the basin-hosted deposits in Europe (Muchez et al., 2005). Two more recent special issues focussing on specific regions also stand out and will be sure to be valuable sources of critical information. One of these, on the mineral deposits of South China (Khin Zaw et al., 2007a) provides an in-depth synopsis of mineral deposits in this part of the world still largely unknown to many researchers outside China. Alongside comprehensive reviews of the nature, diversity of deposit types and metallogenic relations in the region (Khin Zaw et al., 2007b), a review of Tethyan metallogenesis in SW China (Hou et al., 2007), a review of U/Pb geochronology and Hf isotopic signatures of Mesozoic plutons of the Yidun Arc, SW China (Reid et al., 2007), a review of Late Palaeozoic massive sulphide deposits in South China (Gu et al., 2007a) and an overview of skarn gold deposits in China (Chen et al., 2007), the other papers address some of the largest ore deposits in China, including giant ore-forming systems such as Yinshan (Zhang et al., 2007a,b), Jinding (Xue et al., 2007), Woxi (X.X. Gu et al., 2007a,b,c) and Huize (Han et al., 2007).
The gold deposits of the Quadrilátero Ferrífero ore province, Brazil, are covered in a special issue edited by Vial et al. (2007a). Contemporary descriptions of the most important and geologically fascinating mineral deposits in the area, such as Morro Velho (Vial et al., 2007b), Cuiabá (Ribeiro-Rodrigues et al., 2007), São Bento (Pereira et al., 2007), Passagem de Mariana (Vial et al., 2007c), Cauê (Galbiatti et al., 2007) and Raposos (Junqueira et al., 2007) are set against authoritative reviews of lithofacies associations and structural evolution of the Archean Rio das Velhas greenstone belt (Baltazar and Zucchetti, 2007) and a geochronological framework of the Quadrilátero Ferrífero (Noce et al., 2007). Ore Geology Reviews has also had the pleasure to publish the results of international Geoscience Programme (IGCP) projects. IGCP projects further international collaboration by enabling participants to establish new projects and gain access to both facilities and experts. The published results are typically a set of matching complementary results offering a synthesis of the current state of knowledge from a distinctly global perspective. The most recent example (EconomouEliopoulos et al., 2008a) showcases the latest research on ore-forming processes associated with mafic and ultramafic rocks (IGCP-479, ‘Sustainable use of Platinum Group Elements in the 21st Century: Risks and Opportunities’), with contributions dealing with aspects ranging from the Balkan Peninsula (Economou-Eliopoulos et al., 2008b; Tsoupas and Economou-Eliopoulos, 2008), the Russian Urals (Nimis et al., 2008; Tessalina et al., 2008; Zaccarini et al., 2008) and Argentina (Proenza et al., 2008). Apart from regionally-focussed special issues, several special issues dealing with types of deposit or ore-forming processes have also been published in Ore Geology Reviews. ‘Metamorphic processes in ore formation and transformation’ (Cook and Marshall, 2004) and ‘Ores and organic matter’ (Coveney and Pasava, 2004) featured in 2004. A particularly important volume was the one dealing with placer formation and placer minerals (Els and Eriksson, 2006). Alongside critical reviews of placer formation in gravel-bedded rivers (Carling and Breakspear, 2006), the dispersion of magnetite bedload tracer across a gravel point-bar and the development of heavy-mineral placers (Carling et al., 2006) and a study of transport and concentration of detrital gold in foreland basins (Craw et al., 2006), the special issue also contained case studies from localities as far apart as Yukon, New Zealand, Namibia and Bulgaria. This special issue also served to demonstrate the excellent collaboration in the field of ore geology that commonly exists between university-based researchers and those working in industry, as it included papers from researchers within the worlds leading diamond company, DeBeers. Most recently, a special issue dealing with non-sulphide zinc-lead deposits has been published (Gilg et al., 2008). The trend of innovative thematic issues set to be continued with a special issue on the genesis of gem deposits to be published towards the end of 2008. Any look back through recent issues of Ore Geology Reviews shows the vast array of different ways of looking at ore deposits. The various scales too at which a mineral deposit can be studied have all featured in articles published during the past 5 years. Remote sensing using ASTER data has featured in articles by Di Tommaso and Rubinstein (2007) and Landsat ETM+ is used in an article currently in press (Rajesh, 2008). Understanding the mineralogy and ore textures of an ore deposit continues to be critical and aspects of ore mineralogy continue to be well received. Good examples include mineral paragenesis and textures associated with sandstone-hosted rollfront uranium deposits in NW China (Min et al., 2005), telluride assemblages from Cu–Ni–PGE prospects in the Eastern Desert of Egypt (Helmy, 2005), the mineralogical evolution of indium in high grade tin-polymetallic hydrothermal veins (Murao et al., 2008), or understanding glide systems of hematite single crystals (Siemes et al., 2008). Other authors have used innovative techniques, often in combination, to achieve new conclusions on how ore deposits may actually form. Papers by Wagner et al. (2004) dealing with laser microprobe sulphur
Editorial
isotope analysis of arsenopyrite, by Hein et al. (2006) linking mineralogical and fluid inclusion paragenetic studies, or by Grieco et al. (2007) on platinum group element zoning and the mineralogy of chromitites, illustrate the importance of small-scale mineralogical studies. A small number of high-quality experimental studies too have been made a welcome contribution to the table of contents, e.g., a thermodynamic study on hydrothermal thallium mineralization up to 300 °C, by Xiong (2007). Novel ways in which mathematical, statistical and geophysical information can be used in mineral exploration have appeared regularly in Ore Geology Reviews. The usefulness of mathematical or statistical methods in exploration has been expounded by, for example, Kreuzer et al. (2007), who used geological, geophysical and numerical analyses to constrain ore controls in the Charters Towers goldfield, NE Australia, or Ford and Blenkinsop (2008) who combined fractal analysis of mineral deposit clustering with weights of evidence to evaluate patterns of mineralization in the same area. Cheng (2007) mapped singularities within stream sediment geochemical data for prediction of undiscovered mineral deposits in Gejiu, Yunnan Province, China and application of the underlying principles by, among others, Porwal et al. (2006) show how relevant such studies are. Innovative use regional-scale GIS to the metallogeny of NW Argentina enabled Roy et al. (2006) to show how effective the method is and how it may be used to define prospective exploration areas, as Billa et al. (2004) had done in the central Andes. Zhang et al. (2007a,b) demonstrated the application of numerical modelling of deformation and fluid flow in the Shuikoushan district, South China. Several papers have featured innovative ways of looking at ore forming processes, be it the role of discontinuous magma inputs in felsic magma and ore generation (Vigneresse, 2007), biogenic and petroleum-related ore-forming processes in Dongsheng uranium deposit, NW China (Cai et al., 2007) or the formation of banded iron-formations from black smokers and density currents (Lascelles, 2007). Even if controversial, it is critical that new ideas be aired and discussed and if I, as Editor-in-Chief, have been disappointed during the past 5 years, it has been the relative paucity of ‘discussions’ received from individuals who may wish to correct published papers or discuss the validity or accuracy of the contained ideas. The global nature of ore geology today is emphasized by the sheer number of countries and territories from which mineral deposits have been described during the past 5 years, often for the first time in English. China has been particularly well represented in this number, with numerous papers dealing with descriptions of major new mineralization in frontier areas of the Chinese Tianshan, e.g., Kanggur (Zhang et al., 2003), Sawaya'erdun (Liu et al., 2007), Tianger (Zhu et al., 2007) and Tuwu (Han et al., 2006) or Tibet, e.g., Daduhe (Li et al., 2007) or Gangdese (Qu et al., 2007) featuring heavily. This trend is surely set to continue in the years ahead. Chinese colleagues have also sought to deliver a number of innovative papers that show the rapidly expanding depth and breadth of ore geology research in that country. Personal selections of important papers would include the description of copper, gold and silver enrichment in ore mylonites in the Hongtoushan VHMS deposit (Gu et al., 2007a,b,c) and molybdenite Re–Os and albite 40Ar/39Ar dating of Cu–Au–Mo and magnetite porphyry systems in the Yangtze River valley (Mao et al., 2006). Other recent papers have sought to provide state-of-the-art syntheses of some of the worlds most economically-significant ore provinces, e.g., the Yilgarn Craton of Western Australia (Duuring et al., 2007), or regions of the world which may yet be set to be important future producers, given the number of significant new discoveries (e.g., Turkey; Yigit, 2006). Particularly interesting, and important to understanding the underlying principles involved in forming giant ore provinces are those studies comparing and contrasting provinces, e.g., Kalgoorlie in Australia and Timmins–Porcupine in Canada (Bateman and Bierlein, 2007) or massive sulphide deposits of the Bathurst Mining Camp, N.B., Canada, compared with those of the Iberian pyrite belt (Solomon, 2008). Similarly, we are
219
delighted to publish new models for well-known ore districts where, apparently, there is still much opportunity for new ideas, e.g., Outokumpu, Finland (Peltonen et al., 2008) or Broken Hill, N.S.W., Australia (Spry et al., 2008-this issue). It is perhaps not surprising that some of the most cited papers in Ore Geology Reviews have been either those which provide new insights into ore deposits across a significantly-sized area (e.g., Tornos, 2006; Hoatson et al., 2006), those which provide critical data on giant ore-forming systems or provinces, e.g., Ertsberg (Mathur et al., 2005) or the Jiandong Peninsula (Mao et al., 2008), or those which overlap with, or are of interest to researchers from other areas of the geosciences, notably petrology or geodynamics (e.g., Yang et al., 2003; Zhao et al., 2004). There is hardly a mineral commodity that has not been covered by the journal in the past 5 years. Deposits of precious- (gold, PGE), basemetals (Cu, Zn, Pb, Ni) and Fe remain a mainstay, and other articles have covered deposits of antimony, uranium and rare-earth elements, but an increasingly large number of submitted manuscripts have dealt with the less common metals. Germanium, indium, gallium and scandium, in particular, have featured strongly, particularly in a special issue on electronic metals (Ore Geology Reviews vol. 28, p. 1– 146). The review by Wood and Samson (2006) of the aqueous geochemistry of Ga, Ge, In and Sc, and case examples of In-bearing mineralization in the German Erzgebirge (Seifert and Sandmann, 2006) and Mount Pleasant, New Brunswick, Canada (Sinclair et al., 2006), Ge-mineralisation in Namibia (Melcher et al., 2006), and Scmineralisation in Sn–W deposits (Kempe and Wolf, 2006) are among the most cited and downloaded papers we have published in recent years. Together with subsequent papers, including the authoritative review ‘Metallogenesis of germanium - a review’ (Höll et al., 2007), these represent a must ‘first stop’ read for anyone embarking on research on these increasingly sought-after commodities. The journal has chosen to interpret ore geology not only as the study of metalliferous mineral deposits, but also to include a selection of the best submitted papers on other resources, notably those of industrial minerals. Articles have included those on alunite, bentonite, fluorite–barite, kaolinite, wollastonite and zeolite deposits and a series of thematic papers on industrial minerals appeared in 2007 (Christidis, 2006). A state-of-the-art review of marine minerals is presently in press (Rona, 2008). A theme that should concern anyone publishing their results is the citation of websites. This is now becoming commonplace, especially in the field of ore geology. Mining companies now publish copious information on their websites and this trend is to be very much welcomed, as the published-to-web statistical data, maps, photographs and descriptions can be a superb source of up-to-date information — especially when most of it remains confined to otherwise unpublished company reports. Authors have found that citation of web-based information on mineral deposits is a convenient way to quote relevant recent exploration data, tonnage and grade statistics and other information not otherwise readily found in the public domain. A problem can, however, arise in that this web-based information can rapidly be lost, as the pages are updated or moved, or often closed altogether as the companies move on to other exploration areas, or are taken over, merged or simply no longer exist. Not infrequently, the website is no longer available by the time the manuscript which cites it has been submitted for publication. Authors need to check if the information is not available elsewhere (in an unpublished company report, for example) and, in any case, should always provide the date on which the website had been accessed. The Internet places a huge amount of information at the fingertips of a large part of humanity and it is really encouraging to see how net access is becoming increasingly available to those in the world's poorer countries. As welcome as this development is, however, it throws up at least two issues of concern to anyone in research or publishing. Firstly, there is quality control of electronic information. Unfortunately, among the volume of information in cyberspace — interspersed with a great
220
Editorial
deal of excellent authoritative information, there are also a number of websites that contain content that is less than accurate, and in some cases, just plain wrong or misleading. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, but the mixture of pseudoscience and propaganda to be found on the net, can be a real trap for the students of tomorrow. This is often compounded by the sheer number of dead ends, old sites (which are available in updated form elsewhere) and links that don't work; this is an issue that should concern us all. Ore Geology Reviews continually seeks new manuscripts and looks forward to its future contributions on the knowledge on mineral deposits. The journal will continue to consider all types of submissions, particularly those located in parts of the world hitherto poorly described in the English language literature. As the title suggests, however, Ore Geology Reviews will emphasise comprehensive interdisciplinary reviews of ore deposits, whether these reviews cover geographic regions or deposits viewed from a genetic perspective. Such reviews have been a strength of the journal during its history and will continue, in part, to differentiate our journal from our sister journals in the field, which focus primarily on methodical cutting-edge research or exploration successes leading to new deposit discoveries. Acknowledgements Conversations with many members of the editorial board of Ore Geology Reviews have helped shape some of the ideas in this article. The comments of Ore Geology Reviews Associate Editor Reimar Seltmann greatly assisted preparation of the text. Thoughts and opinions of the publishers at Elsevier, particularly Kim-Lan Thonus (Publishing Editor, Geosciences) and Friso Veenstra (Publisher, Geosciences) have helped me understand some of the issues facing scientific publishing today. Lisa Geijtenbeek-Colledge (Publishing Information Manager at Elsevier) kindly provided various sets of statistical data and helped me understand some of the patterns highlighted here. Lastly, I wish to personally thank Karl H. Wolf, the first editor of Ore Geology Reviews (starting from 1986), whom I had the good fortune to meet in 2007, for his words of encouragement and for his long-sighted vision of creating the journal and determination to see it succeed. References Baltazar, O.F., Zucchetti, M., 2007. Lithofacies associations and structural evolution of the Archean Rio das Velhas greenstone belt, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Brazil: a review of the setting of gold deposits. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 471–499. Bateman, R., Bierlein, F.P., 2007. On Kalgoorlie (Australia), Timmins-Porcupine (Canada), and factors in intense gold mineralization. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 187–206. Billa, M., Cassard, D., Lips, A.L.W., Bouchot, V., Tourlière, B., Stein, G., Guillou-Frottier, L., 2004. Predicting gold-rich epithermal and porphyry systems in the central Andes with a continental-scale metallogenic GIS. Ore Geology Reviews 25, 39–67. Special Issue on Geodynamics and Ore Deposit Evolution in Europe. In: Blundell, D., Arndt, N., Cobbold, P.R., Heinrich, C. (Eds.), Ore Geology Reviews 27, 1–350. Cai, C.F., Li, H.T., Qin, M.K., Luo, X.R., Wang, F.Y., Ou, G.X., 2007. Biogenic and petroleumrelated ore-forming processes in Dongsheng uranium deposit, NW China. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 262–274. Carling, P.A., Breakspear, R.M.D., 2006. Placer formation in gravel-bedded rivers: a review. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 377–401. Carling, P.A., Orr, H., Kelsey, A., 2006. The dispersion of magnetite bedload tracer across a gravel point-bar and the development of heavy-mineral placers. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 402–416. Chen, Y.J., Chen, H.Y., Khin Zaw, Pirajno, F., Zhang, Z.J., 2007. Geodynamic settings and tectonic model of skarn gold deposits in China: an overview. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 139–169. Cheng, Q.M., 2007. Mapping singularities with stream sediment geochemical data for prediction of undiscovered mineral deposits in Gejiu, Yunnan Province, China. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 314–324. Christidis, G.E. (Ed.), 2006. Industrial minerals - a series of thematic papers. Ore Geology Reviews, vol. 29, pp. 103–175. Cook, N.J., Marshall, B., 2004. Metamorphic processes in ore formation and transformation: a thematic series of papers. Ore Geology Reviews 24, 169–372. CoveneyJr. Jr., R.M., Pasava, J. (Eds.), 2004. Ores and organic matter. Ore Geology Reviews, vol. 24, pp. 1–167. Craw, D., Youngson, J.H., Leckie, D.A., 2006. Transport and concentration of detrital gold in foreland basins. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 417–430. Di Tommaso, I., Rubinstein, N., 2007. Hydrothermal alteration mapping using ASTER data in the Infiernillo porphyry deposit, Argentina. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 275–290.
Duuring, P., Cassidy, K.F., Hagemann, S.G., 2007. Granitoid-associated orogenic, intrusion-related, and porphyry style metal deposits in the Archean Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 157–186. Economou-Eliopoulos, M., Garuti, G., Mungall, J. (Eds.), 2008a. Ore-forming processes associated with mafic and ultramafic rocks. Ore Geology Reviews, vol. 33, pp. 1–114. Economou-Eliopoulos, M., Eliopoulos, D.G., Chryssoulis, S., 2008b. A comparison of high-Au massive sulfide ores hosted in ophiolite complexes of the Balkan Peninsula with modern analogues: genetic significance. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 81–100. Els, G., Eriksson, P. (Eds.), 2006. Placer formation and placer minerals. Ore Geology Reviews. vol. 28, vol. 28, pp. 373–548. Ford, A., Blenkinsop, T.G., 2008. Combining fractal analysis of mineral deposit clustering with weights of evidence to evaluate patterns of mineralization: application to copper deposits of the Mount Isa Inlier, NW Queensland, Australia. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 435–450. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2007.01.004. Galbiatti, H.F., Fonseca, M.A., Pereira, M.C., Polônia, J.C., 2007. Structural control of Au– Pd mineralization (Jacutinga): an example from the Cauê Mine, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Brazil. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 614–628. Gilg, H.A., Boni, M., Cook, N.J. (Eds.), 2008. A Special Issue devoted to Nonsulfide Zn–Pb Deposits. Ore Geology Reviews, vol. 33, pp. 115–210. Grieco, G., Diella, V., Chaplygina, N.L., Savelieva, G.N., 2007. Platinum group elements zoning and mineralogy of chromitites from the cumulate sequence of the Nurali massif (Southern Urals, Russia). Ore Geology Reviews 30, 257–276. Groves, D.I., Goldfarb, R.J., Gebre-Mariam, M., Hagemann, S.G., Robert, F., 1998. Orogenic gold deposits: a proposed classification in the context of their crustal distribution and relationship to other gold deposit types. Ore Geology Reviews 13, 7–27. Gu, L.X., Khin Zaw, Hu, W.X., Zhang, K.J., Ni, P., He, J.X., Xu, X.T., Lu, J.J., Lin, C.M., 2007a. Distinctive features of Late Palaeozoic massive sulphide deposits in South China. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 107–138. Gu, L.X., Zheng, Y.C., Tang, X.Q., Khin Zaw, Della-Pasque, F., Wu, C.Z., Tian, Z.M., Lu, J.J., Ni, P., Li, X., Yang, F., Wang, X.W., 2007b. Copper, gold and silver enrichment in ore mylonites within massive sulphide orebodies at Hongtoushan VHMS deposit, N.E. China. Ore Geology Reviews 30, 1–29. Gu, X.X., Schulz, O., Vavtar, F., Liu, J.M., Zheng, M.H., Fu, S.H., 2007c. Rare earth element geochemistry of the Woxi W–Sb–Au deposit, Hunan Province, South China. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 319–336. Han, C.M., Xiao, W.J., Zhao, G.C., Mao, J.W., Yang, J.M., Wang, Z.L., Yan, Z., Mao, Q., 2006. Geological characteristics and genesis of the Tuwu porphyry copper deposit, Hami, Xinjiang, Central Asia. Ore Geology Reviews 29, 77–94. Han, R.S., Liu, C.Q., Huang, Z.L., Chen, J., Ma, D.Y., Lei, L., Ma, G.S., 2007. Geological features and origin of the Huize carbonate-hosted Zn–Pb–(Ag) District, Yunnan, South China. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 360–383. Hein, K.A.A., Khin Zaw, Mernagh, T.P., 2006. Linking mineral and fluid inclusion paragenetic studies: The Batman deposit, Mt. Todd (Yimuyn Manjerr) goldfield, Australia. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 180–200. Helmy, H.M., 2005. Melonite group minerals and other tellurides from three Cu–Ni–PGE prospects, Eastern Desert, Egypt. Ore Geology Reviews 26, 305–324. Herrington, R., Maslennikov, V., Zaykov, V., Seravkin, I., Kosarev, A., Buschmann, B., Orgeval, J.-J., Holland, N., Tesalina, S., Nimis, P., Armstrong, R., 2005. Classification of VMS deposits: Lessons from the South Uralides. Ore Geology Reviews 27, 203–237. Hoatson, D.M., Jaireth, S., Jaques, A.L., 2006. Nickel sulfide deposits in Australia: characteristics, resources, and potential. Ore Geology Reviews 29, 177–241. Höll, R., Kling, M., Schroll, E., 2007. Metallogenesis of germanium — a review. Ore Geology Reviews 30, 145–180. Huston, D.L., Large, R.R., 1989. A chemical model for the concentration of gold in volcanogenic massive sulphide deposits. Ore Geology Reviews 4, 171–200. Hou, Z.Q., Khin Zaw, Pan, G.T., Mo, X.X., Xu, Q., Hu, Y.Z., Li, X.Z., 2007. Sanjiang Tethyan metallogenesis in S.W. China: tectonic setting, metallogenic epochs and deposit types. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 48–87. Junqueira, P.A., Lobato, L.M., Ladeira, E.A., Simões, E.J.M., 2007. Structural control and hydrothermal alteration at the BIF-hosted Raposos lode-gold deposit, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Brazil. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 629–650. Kempe, U., Wolf, D., 2006. Anomalously high Sc contents in ore minerals from Sn–W deposits: Possible economic significance and genetic implications. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 103–122. Khin Zaw, S.G., Peters, Cook, N.J., Hou, Z.Q. (Eds.), 2007a. Mineral deposits of South China. Ore Geology Reviews, vol. 31, pp. 1–384. Khin Zaw, Peters, S.G., Cromie, P., Burrett, C., Hou, Z.Q., 2007b. Nature, diversity of deposit types and metallogenic relations of South China. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 3–47. Kreuzer, O.P., Blenkinsop, T.G., Morrison, R.J., Peters, S.G., 2007. Ore controls in the Charters Towers goldfield, NE Australia: constraints from geological, geophysical and numerical analyses. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 37–80. Lascelles, D.F., 2007. Black smokers and density currents: a uniformitarian model for the genesis of banded iron-formations. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 381–411. Li, X.F., Mao, J.W., Wang, C.Z., Watanabe, Y., 2007. The Daduhe gold field at the eastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau: He, Ar, S, O, and H isotopic data and their metallogenic implications. Ore Geology Reviews 30, 244–256. Liu, J.J., Zheng, M.H., Cook, N.J., Long, X.R., Deng, J., Zhai, Y.S., 2007. Geological and geochemical characteristics of the Sawaya'erdun gold deposit, southwestern Chinese Tianshan. Orte Geology Reviews 32, 125–156. Mao, J.W., Wang, Y., Lehmann, B., Yu, J.J., Du, A., Mei, Y.X., Li, Y.F., Zang, W.S., Stein, H.J., Zhou, T., 2006. Molybdenite Re–Os and albite 40Ar/39Ar dating of Cu–Au–Mo and magnetite porphyry systems in the Yangtze River valley and metallogenic implications. Ore Geology Reviews 29, 307–324. Mao, J.W., Wang, Y., Li, H., Pirajno, F., Zhang, Z.Q., Wang, R., 2008. The relationship ofmantle- derived fluids to gold metallogenesis in the Jiaodong Peninsula: evidence
Editorial from D–O–C–S isotope systematics. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 361–381. doi:10.1016/j. oregeorev.2007.01.003. Marchev, P., Kaiser-Rohrmeier, M., Heinrich, C., Ovtcharova, M., von Quadt, A., Raicheva, R., 2005. Hydrothermal ore deposits related to post-orogenic extensional magmatism and core complex formation: the Rhodope Massif of Bulgaria and Greece. Ore Geology Reviews 27, 53–89. Marshall, B., Gilligan, L.B., 1993. Remobilization, syn-tectonic processes and massive sulphide deposits. Ore Geology Reviews 8, 39–64. Mathur, R., Titley, S., Ruiz, J., Gibbins, S., Friehauf, K., 2005. A Re–Os isotope study of sedimentary rocks and copper–gold ores from the Ertsberg District, West Papua, Indonesia. Ore Geology Reviews 26, 207–226. Melcher, M., Oberthür, T., Rammlmair, D., 2006. Geochemical and mineralogical distribution of germanium in the Khusib Springs Cu–Zn–Pb–Ag sulfide deposit, Otavi Mountain Land, Namibia. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 32–56. Min, M.Z., Chen, J., Wang, J.P., Wei, G.H., Fayek, M., 2005. Mineral paragenesis and textures associated with sandstone-hosted roll-front uranium deposits, NW China. Ore Geology Reviews 26, 51–69. Muchez, P., Heijlen, W., Banks, D., Blundell, D., Boni, M., Grandia, F., 2005. Extensional tectonics and the timing and formation of basin-hosted deposits in Europe. Ore Geology Reviews 27, 241–267. Murao, S., Deb, M., Furuno, M., 2008. Mineralogical evolution of indium in high grade tin-polymetallic hydrothermal veins — a comparative study from Tosham, Haryana state, India and Goka, Naegi district, Japan. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 490–504. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2007.02.004. Neubauer, F., Lips, A., Kouzmanov, K., Lexa, J., Ivăşcanu, P., 2005. Subduction, slab detachment and mineralization: the Neogene in the Apuseni Mountains and Carpathians. Ore Geology Reviews 27, 13–44. Nimis, P., Zaykov, V.V., Omenetto, P., Melekestseva, I.Yu., Tesalina, S.G., Orgeval, J.-J., 2008. Peculiarities of some mafic–ultramafic- and ultramafic-hosted massive sulfide deposits from the Main Uralian Fault Zone, southern Urals. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 49–69. Noce, C.M., Tassinari, C., Lobato, L.M., 2007. Geochronological framework of the Quadrilátero Ferrífero, with emphasis on the age of gold mineralization hosted in Archean greenstone belts. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 500–510. Peltonen, P., Kontinen, A., Huhma, H., Kuronen, U., 2008. Outokumpu revisited: New mineral deposit model for the mantle peridotite-associated Cu–Co–Zn–Ni–Ag–Au sulphide deposits. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 559–617. doi:10.1016/j. oregeorev.2007.07.002. Pereira, S.L.M., Lobato, L.M., Ferreira, J.E., Jardim, E.C., 2007. Nature and origin of the BIFhosted São Bento gold deposit, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Brazil, with special emphasis on structural controls. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 571–595. Porwal, A., Carranza, E.J.M., Hale, M., 2006. Tectonostratigraphy and base-metal mineralization controls, Aravalli province (western India): new interpretations from geophysical data analysis. Ore Geology Reviews 29, 287–306. Proenza, J.A., Zaccarini, F., Escayola, M., Cábana, C., Schalamuk, A., Garuti, G., 2008. Composition and textures of chromite and platinum-group minerals in chromitites of the western ophiolitic belt from Pampean Ranges of Córdoba, Argentina. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 32–48. Qu, X.M., Hou, Z.Q., Khin Zaw, Li, Y.G., 2007. Characteristics and genesis of Gangdese porphyry copper deposits in the southern Tibetan Plateau: preliminary geochemical and geochronological results. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 205–223. Rajesh, H.M., 2008. Mapping Proterozoic unconformity-related uranium deposits in the Rockhole area, Northern Territory, Australia using landsat ETM+. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 382–396. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2007.02.003. Reid, A., Wilson, C.J.L., Shun, L., Pearson, N., Belousova, E., 2007. Mesozoic plutons of the Yidun Arc, SW China: U/Pb geochronology and Hf isotopic signature. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 88–106. Ribeiro-Rodrigues, L.C., de Oliveira, C.G., Friedrich, G., 2007. The Archean BIF-hosted Cuiabá Gold deposit, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 543–570. Rona, P.A., 2008. The changing vision of marine minerals. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 618–666. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2007.03.006. Roy, R., Cassard, D., Cobbold, P.R., Rossello, E.A., Billa, M., Bailly, L., Lips, A.L.W., 2006. Predictive mapping for copper–gold magmatic-hydrothermal systems in NW Argentina: Use of a regional-scale GIS, application of an expert-guided data-driven approach, and comparison with results from a continental-scale GIS. Ore Geology Reviews 29, 260–286. Seifert, T., Sandmann, D., 2006. Mineralogy and geochemistry of indium-bearing polymetallic vein-type deposits: Implications for host minerals from the Freiberg district, Eastern Erzgebirge, Germany. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 1–31. Siemes, H., Klingenberg, B., Rybacki, E., Naumann, M., Schäfer, W., Jansen, E., Kunze, K., 2008. Glide systems of hematite single crystals in deformation experiments. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 255–279. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2007.03.007. SinclairW.D., W.D., KooimanG.J.A., G.J.A., MartinD.A., D.A., KjarsgaardI.M., I.M., 2006. Geology, geochemistry and mineralogy of indium resources at Mount Pleasant, New Brunswick, Canada. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 123–145. Solomon, M., 2008. Brine pool deposition for the Zn–Pb–Cu massive sulphide deposits of the Bathurst mining camp, New Brunswick, Canada. I. Comparisons with the Iberian pyrite belt. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 329–351. doi:10.1016/j. oregeorev.2007.04.001.
221
Spry, PG., Plimer, I.R., Teale, G.S., 2008. Did the giant Broken Hill (Australia) Zn–Pb–Ag deposit melt? Ore Geology Reviews 34, 223–241 (this issue). doi:10.1016/j. oregeorev.2007.11.001. Tessalina, S.G., Bourdon, B., Maslennikov, V.V., Orgeval, J.-J., Birck, Gannoun, A., Capmas, F., Allègre, C.-J., 2008. Osmium isotope distribution within the Palaeozoic Alexandrinka seafloor hydrothermal system in the Southern Urals, Russia. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 70–80. Tornos, F., 2006. Environment of formation and styles of volcanogenic massive sulfides: the Iberian Pyrite Belt. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 259–307. Tornos, F., Casquet, C., Relvas, J.M.R.S., 2005. Transpressional tectonics, lower crust decoupling and intrusion of deep mafic sills: a model for the unusual metallogenesis of SW Iberia. Ore Geology Reviews 27, 133–163. Tsoupas, G., Economou-Eliopoulos, M., 2008. High PGE contents and extremely abundant PGE-minerals hosted in chromitites from the Veria ophiolite complex, northern Greece. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 3–19. Vial, D.S., Groves, D.I., Cook, N.J., Lobato, L.M. (Eds.), 2007a. Special issue on gold deposits of Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Ore Geology Reviews, vol. 33, pp. 469–688. Vial, D.S., DeWitt, E., Lobato, L.M., Thorman, C.H., 2007b. The geology of the Morro Velho gold deposit in the Archean Rio das Velhas greenstone belt, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Brazil. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 511–542. Vial, D.S., Duarte, B.P., Fuzikawa, K., Vieira, M.B.H., 2007c. An epigenetic origin for the Passagem de Mariana gold deposit, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 596–613. Vigneresse, J.L., 2007. The role of discontinuous magma inputs in felsic magma and ore generation. Ore Geology Reviews 30, 181–216. von Quadt, A., Moritz, R., Peytcheva, I., Heinrich, C.A., 2005. Geochronology and geodynamics of Late Cretaceous magmatism and Cu–Au mineralization in the Panagyurishte region of the Apuseni–Banat–Timok–Srednogorie belt, Bulgaria. Ore Geology Reviews 27, 95–126. Wagner, T., Boyce, A.J., Jonsson, E., Fallick, A.E., 2004. Laser microprobe sulphur isotope analysis of arsenopyrite: experimental calibration and application to the Boliden Au–Cu–As massive sulphide deposit. Ore Geology Reviews 25, 311–325. Weihed, P., Arndt, N., Billström, K., Duchesne, J.-C., Eilu, P., Martinsson, O., Papunen, H., Lahtinen, R., 2005. Precambrian geodynamics and ore formation: the Fennoscandian Shield. Ore Geology Reviews 27, 273–322. Wood, S.A., Samson, I.M., 2006. The aqueous geochemistry of gallium, germanium, indium and scandium. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 57–102. Xiong, Y.L., 2007. Hydrothermal thallium mineralization up to 300 °C: a thermodynamic approach. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 291–313. Xue, C.J., Zeng, R., Liu, S., Chi, G.X., Qing, H., Chen, Y.C., Yang, J.M., Wang, D.H., 2007. Geologic, fluid inclusion and isotopic characteristics of the Jinding Zn–Pb deposit, western Yunnan, South China: a review. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 337–359. Yang, J.H., Wu, F.W., Wilde, S.A., 2003. A review of the geodynamic setting of large-scale Late Mesozoic gold mineralization in the North China Craton: an association with lithospheric thinning. Ore Geology Reviews 23, 125–152. Yigit, O., 2006. Gold in Turkey — a missing link in Tethyan metallogeny. Ore Geology Reviews 28, 147–179. Zaccarini, F., Pushkarev, E., Garuti, G., 2008. Platinum-group element mineralogy and geochemistry of chromitite of the Kluchevskoy ophiolite complex, central Urals (Russia). Ore Geology Reviews 33, 20–30. Zhang, L.C., Shen, Y.C., Ji, J.S., 2003. Characteristics and genesis of Kanggur gold deposit in the eastern Tianshan mountains, NW China: evidence from geology, isotope distribution and chronology. Ore Geology Reviews 23, 71–90. Zhang, D.H., Xu, G.J., Zhang, W.H., Golding, S.D., 2007a. High salinity fluid inclusions in the Yinshan polymetallic deposit from the Le–De metallogenic belt in Jiangxi Province, China: their origin and implications for ore genesis. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 247–260. Zhang, Y.H., Lin, G., Roberts, P., Ord, A., 2007b. Numerical modelling of deformation and fluid flow in the Shuikoushan district, Hunan Province, South China. Ore Geology Reviews 31, 261–278. Zhao, Z.F., Zheng, Y.F., Wei, C.S., Gong, B., 2004. Temporal relationship between granite cooling and hydrothermal uranium mineralization at Dalongshan in China: a combined radiometric and oxygen isotopic study. Ore Geology Reviews 25, 221–236. Zhu, Y.F., Zhou, J., Zeng, Y.S., 2007. The Tianger (Bingdaban) shear zone hosted gold deposit, west Tianshan, NW China: petrographic and geochemical characteristics. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 337–365.
Nigel J. Cook Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Boks 1172 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway E-mail address: [email protected]. 8 April 2008