Publication Ethic

For Authors

1)  Submission must be an original contribution by the named author or authors, and it has never been published before. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are considered unethical, and the bibliography information should be clearly annotated in the references. The data should be true, non-deceptive, and no fudging or plagiarism as well as other academic misconduct action.

2)  All authors should be contributors to the work. There’s no dispute in the author order, and the corresponding author should ensure that publication of the paper be authorized by the other authors. Alteration of the author order before publication should be consented by all authors to ensure the accuracy of all authors’ rights.

3)  Funds information should be indicated in the manuscript. Support or aid for the publication of the work by persons having no author qualifications should be clearly stated in the acknowledgement.

For Reviewers

1)   Comments should be objective and fair and opinions on the academic value and whether the paper can meet the publication standards should be clear and precise to avoid ambiguity.

2)   A reviewer should respect different academic views and shall not make rude, aggressive comments. Serious scientific misconduct should be reported to the editorial office.

3)   If a reviewer is not familiar work or method  to make a fair peer review, please inform the editorial office. For paper with conflicts in interests or having shared benefits, avoidance of peer review is required.

4)   When a peer review invitation is accepted, the review comments should be submitted within the planning time; hinders or delays for completion of review should be notified to the editorial office in time.

For Editors

1)   Ensure the justice of review and reduce bias. Make efforts to ensure the timely process for contribution by arranging peer review and publication promptly, especially for papers with important findings.

2)   Ensure the journal publication on time with schedule. Report novel and authentic researches, give priority to publication of frontier and hot issues. Avoid publication with academic misconducts, including plagiarism/self-plagiarism.

3)   A suitable and competent reviewers’ database should be established and maintained. Quality of reviewing tasks by reviews/editorial board members should truthfully recorded and evaluated.

4)   Convey the experts’ review comments to the author timely. Coordinate academic discussions and communications between the author and reviewer. Offensive or defamatory comments are not considered. The author’s appeal on the final decision is accepted.

5)   Make recommendation (revision, rejection or acceptance) based on the merits, originality, and relevance of the paper. Meanwhile the author should be informed of the rights to make appeals after receiving the final decision.