Shandong Science Publishing Ethics (Provisional)
In order to strengthen and enhance the academic norms, research integrity, and academic ethics in the process of academic paper writing, review and editing, establish a good academic style, promote scientific spirit, resolutely resist academic misconduct, establish and maintain a fair, just, and open academic exchange environment, Shandong Science, based on the actual situation of the journal, specially formulated a publishing ethics statement, promising that the journal will strictly abide by and implement the relevant national academic ethics and editorial and publishing related policies and regulations, regulate the actions of authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors throughout the entire publishing process, and accept the supervision of the academic community and society at large. We use CNKI's "Academic Misconduct Literature Check System (AMLC)" of CNKI, the "Wanfang Detection" of Wanfang Database, and the "Daya Similarity Detection" of Chaoxing Database to detect all submitted papers. Papers with a text similarity rate exceeding 10%, or those that have been submitted within two weeks without an explanation to the editorial office will be rejected.
1 Author's Publishing Ethics
1.1 Academic papers are an important part of scientific research.
Academic papers are an important form of scientific research and an important part of the rigorous research process. They should be truthful, pragmatic, honest, and trustworthy; actively explore unknown scientific problems; question boldly; verify carefully; and pursue scientific truth. During writing, authors should ensure the significance of the research, clarity of research objectives, cutting-edge nature of research topics, rigor of research design, scientific soundness of research methods, standardization of research processes, reliability of data, correctness of results, and innovativeness of conclusions. Academic papers should be grounded in solid research, uphold research integrity, maintain academic ethics, engage in responsible research conduct, and fulfill the academic mission and social responsibilities of scientific research.
1.2 Academic misconduct is the cancer of academic papers.
Authors should fully understand the serious harm of academic misconduct, strengthen research integrity and academic ethics education, comply with national regulations such as "Science and Technology Standards for Science and Technology Workers (Trial)", “Opinions on Strengthening the Construction of Scientific Research Conduct", "Opinions on Further Strengthening the Construction of Research Integrity", and "Opinions on Further Promoting the Spirit of Scientists, Strengthening the Construction of Work Style and Study Style". Authors should be strict with themselves, improve self-discipline, strengthen self-restraint, uphold integrity, resist fraud and quick success, actively combat academic corruption, and resolutely oppose plagiarism, falsification, data fabrication, improper authorship, multiple submissions, duplicate publication, ghostwriting, improper citation, disclosure, infringement, interference with peer review, and other forms of academic misconduct, thereby eradicating the "cancer" in academic papers.
1.3 The author is the main contributor to academic papers.
Authors must make substantial contributions to the academic paper, be directly responsible for it, and hold copyright of the work. Contributions include research conception, study design, literature review, discussion and formulation of key ideas, technical support, data collection and/or processing, data analysis and/or interpretation, manuscript writing, and manuscript review and revision, etc. False authorship is prohibited. OSID registration is required at submission. Any conflicts of interest must be disclosed, and authors should submit integrity support materials related to the paper.
1.4 The author's signature reflects the author's intellectual property rights and academic contributions.
The principle of authorship should follow the “Integrity Reminders on Common Problems or Errors in Authorship of Academic Papers” by the Scientific Ethics Committee of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The person who made the most important contribution to the academic paper is listed as the first author, and other significant contributors can be listed as corresponding authors. The first author (or corresponding author) is responsible for the research quality, academic standards, and authenticity of the paper, and for the authenticity of all collaborators. All authors who have substantial contributions can sign and provide a description of the author’s contribution. The order of authorship should be determined jointly by all authors according to their contributions to the paper. Authors cannot be changed after submission. All signed authors should read and agree to the publication of the final revised manuscript. Those who participated in the research support work but should not be listed as authors can be listed in the acknowledgements.
1.5 Academic papers should give high priority to intellectual property rights and information security.
Submitted papers must be guaranteed to be published for the first time, and any infringement related to intellectual property rights should be avoided. Papers must not involve state secrets or institutional business secrets, any papers involving confidential information must be declassified beforehand. The author is responsible for any issues involving intellectual property rights and information security. Before the paper is accepted, the author must sign a copyright transfer agreement and a confidentiality agreement with the editorial office (can be signed through the journal homepage https://www.sdkx.net or OSID). Authors can view the review process through the submission system, and should not submit other publications before receiving the acceptance or rejection notice from the editorial office; otherwise they will be regarded as academic misconduct and will be liable.
1.6 Proper citation of references is an important representation of academic standards.
References indicate the internal connection between academic heritage and scientific research. Anyone who refers to others’ literature or is inspired or influenced by others’ thoughts and opinions must indicate the source accurately and completely; otherwise, it will be regarded as plagiarism or misappropriation. Proper and reasonable citations must be used, and avoid phenomena such as irrelevant citations, multiple citations, missing citations, incorrect citations, concealed citations, abusive citations, unduly reverential citations, and excessive self-citation. All cited documents must clearly indicate the source of the citation, and provide the citation source in the national standard reference description method (GB 7714-2015 "Information and Literature Reference Rules").
1.7 Emphasizing the standardization of research data and its management.
It is necessary to ensure the originality, authenticity, reliability, and integrity of the data provided, and to eliminate any data fabrication. If the paper involves key data and analyses, the authors should provide the original dataset and the URL of the original analysis platform or computer screenshots to the editorial office, so that reviewers and editors can assess and verify the data. This information can be included in the OSID record for review by the editorial office and peer reviewers.
1.8 Establishing a retrospective system for published papers.
Once the paper is published, it implies acceptance of supervision by the academic community and the whole society. If the author or others discover defects in the paper or violations of research ethics during the research process, they should immediately inform the editorial office. The editorial office, after verification, should assist the author in withdrawing the paper or issuing a correction statement or erratum. Those found to have committed academic misconduct will be punished in accordance with the relevant procedures and regulations of academic misconduct. Authors should take lifelong responsibility for their papers.
2. Publication ethics for peer reviewers
2.1 Peer review is an important mechanism for ensuring paper quality.
Peer review is an academic process that invites third-party experts to make scientific and professional judgments on papers. It is the most important audit control mechanism for the research significance and academic and application value of papers. Reviewers are experts in a specific research field with academic experience and achievements, generally holding deputy senior or higher titles, or a doctoral degree.
Reviewers should adhere to the standards of academic evaluation, encourage innovation (rather than stifle innovation), and independently (without delegating to third parties) conduct a careful, professional, and independent assessment of the originality, innovativeness, scientific rigor, authenticity, and practicality of the paper. They should provide fair, impartial, and objective evaluations, focusing on: the importance of the research significance, clarity of research objectives, novelty of the research topic, soundness of research design, appropriateness of methods, standardization of the research process, reliability of data, correctness of results, innovativeness of conclusions, and both academic and practical value. Reviewers should also check for academic misconduct, improper conduct, or ethical violations to help the editorial office make informed decisions and ensure the academic quality of accepted papers.
2.2 Reviewers should comply with the relevant requirements for manuscript evaluation.
Reviewers should cultivate a strong sense of responsibility and dedication, act not for fame or personal gain, be willing to devote themselves, and reflect the social responsibility and professional values of scholars. Reviewers should review papers on time, provide detailed revision suggestions for any issues, and submit their review comments to the editorial office within the specified timeframe to help authors improve the quality and writing of their papers. If unable to complete on time, they should explain the situation promptly. The editorial office will establish a dynamic adjustment and optimization mechanism for reviewers based on the quality and timeliness of their reviews.
2.3 Reviewers should strictly follow the relevant ethical guidelines and codes of conduct. Reviewers must adhere to academic ethics, evaluate manuscripts solely on their scholarly merit, and refrain from making personal comments or attacks on the authors. Reviewers should prevent academic bias or abuse of academic power. They must firmly oppose reviews that violate academic ethics, fail to follow review procedures, breach conflict of interest or confidentiality rules, or involve misappropriation of paper content, obtaining improper benefits, or other forms of academic misconduct. At the same time, reviewed papers must be kept strictly confidential, not circulated or discussed with others, and their data, opinions, and conclusions must not be used or published. If reviewers wish to use them, they must obtain the author’s consent. Reviewers should not arbitrarily require authors to cite their own papers or papers in which they have an interest. All review comments and information must remain confidential and not be used for personal purposes. Reviewers should promptly inform the editorial department if they receive papers with potential conflicts of interest due to competition or cooperation with the author or the author’s institution or company. After reviewing a paper, reviewers should destroy the manuscript and all related supporting materials.
3. The publishing ethics of editors
3.1 The editor should be the guardian of the quality of academic papers.
Editors must have good political and ethical integrity, high-level scientific and professional literacy, and well-trained subject editing skills, meet relevant qualifications and training requirements, and abide by national policies on journal management and all relevant journal regulations. Adhere to the correct publication guidance, accurately plan and conduct editing and publishing activities in line with the journal’s mission and scope, follow the “three-round review and three-round proofreading” system, and strictly implement the review process. After receiving manuscripts, the editorial office first checks all papers for similarity, and those passing the preliminary review are sent for external peer review. Establish a system of responsible editors for the current issue. Respect reviewers’ opinions, make full use of the editorial committee, objectively evaluate the academic issues of the paper, and combine reviewer feedback to make fair and reasonable decisions on revision, acceptance, or rejection, providing reasons for any rejection. Decisions should be based solely on the quality of the paper, not the author’s identity, and editors should ensure the final check on paper quality. Place the quality of papers and journals above all else, valuing the journal’s brand, academic value, and social responsibility.
3.2 Editors should play a monitoring role in the construction of academic ethics.
Abide by academic publishing ethics, uphold research integrity, academic ethics, and norms, defend academic dignity, improve academic supervision, foster a positive academic environment, and maintain the healthy and sustainable development of the academic ecosystem. Editors must firmly oppose editorial decisions that violate academic or ethical standards, oppose conflicts of interest, breaches of confidentiality, misappropriation of paper content, interference with peer review, seeking improper benefits, and other forms of editor-related academic misconduct. Editors should not let personal interests influence paper acceptance or rejection. Editors should maintain the authenticity of review records and keep all materials related to review and revision confidential. Except for the relevant authors and reviewers, editors must not disclose information about submitted papers to others. Editors must ensure that information submitted by authors is not used for personal research or shared with others for research purposes, and that the identities of reviewers and relevant editorial staff are protected during the blind review process.
3.3 Editors should serve as the last line of defense against academic misconduct
Editors should follow the "Statement on Promoting the Integrity and Ethical Standards of Academic Publishing and Scientific Research" by the Chinese Society of Science and Technology Journal Editors and the "National Academic Press Standardization and Definition of Academic Misconduct in Journals" by the National Press and Publication Standardization Technical Committee, abide by editorial office regulations, and continuously improve their ability to prevent and control academic misconduct,
Education, prevention, supervision, and discipline should be integrated, and a coordination mechanism should be established among reviewers, the editorial board, and the academic committee. Editors should make full use of expert resources and technical tools to strengthen control at every stage of the peer review process—from initial submission to final decision—so as to eliminate academic misconduct at its source and minimize its negative impact. Scientific research should be tolerant of failure; academic debate should be encouraged, and academic criticism should be advocated. A complaint and appeal mechanism should be established. Academic misconduct does not include unintentional errors or differences of opinion.
4. Implement a "zero tolerance" policy toward academic misconduct.
According to the "Several Opinions on Further Strengthening the Construction of Integrity in Scientific Research" by the General Office of the State Council, as well as the "Regulations on Investigation and Handling of Cases of Integrity in Scientific Research (Trial)", the "Regulations on the Handling of Violations of Scientific and Technological Activities (Consultation Draft)", the “Memorandum of Cooperation for Joint Disciplinary Actions against Untrustworthy Entities in the Field of Scientific Research”, and the relevant regulations of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, any instance of academic misconduct discovered before or after publication shall be strictly investigated, and the authors shall be held accountable and subject to disciplinary action in accordance with relevant regulations. Depending on the severity of the circumstances, measures may include integrity warnings, self-reflection, rejection, retraction, public notification, inclusion on a blacklist, notification of the author’s affiliated institution, and public disclosure on the Shandong Science journal homepage and WeChat official account. There shall be no compromise, no indulgence, and no tolerance. The journal aims to build a research integrity and publishing ethics system that upholds both self-discipline and external oversight.
5. Advertisement Policy
Shandong Science does not accept advertising. No commercial advertisements will be published in the journal or on the journal’s official website.
Submit an Article