Publishing Ethics

  • 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 ecology The environment, Shandong Science combined with 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, regulating authors, peer review experts, journal editors, etc. Act in the whole process, and accept the supervision of academia and the whole society.

    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 scientific research process. Academic papers should insist on seeking truth and being pragmatic, honest and trustworthy, actively explore the unknown issues in science, boldly question, carefully verify, and explore scientific truth. Adhere to the importance of research significance, the clarity of research goals, the forefront of research topics, the rigor of research design, the scientific nature of research methods, the standardization of research processes, the reliability of research data, and the research results Correctness and innovativeness of research conclusions. Academic papers should be based on solid scientific research, adhere to scientific research integrity, maintain academic ethics, adhere to responsible scientific research behavior, and abide by the academic mission and social responsibility 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, and abide by "Science and Technology Standards for Science and Technology Workers (Trial)", "Opinions on Strengthening the Construction of Scientific Research Conduct", and "Several Issues on Further Strengthening the Construction of Research Integrity" Opinions, "Opinions on Further Promoting the Spirit of Scientists, Strengthening the Construction of Work Style and Study Style", etc., strict self-discipline, improve self-discipline awareness, strengthen self-restraint, enhance the sense of subject responsibility, adhere to the bottom line of integrity, oppose fraud and quick success, and consciously fight against academic corruption , Resolutely resist any plagiarism, forgery, tampering, improper attribution, multiple submissions, repeated publications and escrow, improper citations, disclosure, infringement, interference with review procedures and other academic misconducts, academic misconduct and academic misconduct, Eradicate the tumors in academic papers.

    1.3 The author is the main contributor to academic papers.

    The author should make a substantial contribution to the academic paper, be the direct responsible person of the paper, and own the copyright of the achievement. The author's contributions are reflected in research ideas, scheme design, literature research, discussion and presentation of important points, technical support and assurance, data collection and/or processing, data analysis and/or interpretation, paper writing, paper review and revision Wait. Against false signatures. The OSID code must be registered at the time of submission. If there is a conflict of interest, please explain, and submit the integrity support materials related to the academic paper.

    1.4 The author's signature reflects the author's intellectual property rights and academic contributions.

    The attribution principle should follow the “Reminds of Honesty about Common Problems or Errors in Attribution of Academic Papers” by the Scientific Ethics Committee of 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, which will be published as part of the paper. The order of author's signature should be determined by all authors according to the author's contribution to the paper. The author 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 acknowledgement.

    1.5 Academic papers should attach great importance to intellectual property rights and information security.

    The submitted papers should be guaranteed to be published for the first time, and any infringement related to intellectual property rights should be eliminated. The papers should not involve state secrets and institutional business secrets, and the papers involving secrets must be dealt with in advance. 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 department (can be signed through the journal homepage 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 department, otherwise they will be regarded as academic misconduct and will be liable.

    1.6 The normative citation of references is an important representation of academic norms.

    References indicate the internal connection between academic heritage and scientific research. Anyone who refers to other people’s literature or is inspired or influenced by other people’s thoughts and opinions must indicate the source accurately and completely, otherwise it will be regarded as plagiarism or plagiarism. Pay attention to proper citations and reasonable citations, and avoid phenomena such as irrelevant citations, multiple citations, missing citations, wrong citations, concealed citations, abused citations, admired 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 High attention should be paid to 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 prevent all data fraud. If the key data and analysis are involved in the paper, the author needs to provide the original data set and the network platform address or computer screen capture file of the original analysis to the editorial department, so that the review experts and the editorial department can review and judge the data of the paper. This part of the content can be placed in the OSID code for the editorial department and review experts to review.

    1.8 Establish a retrospective system for publication of papers.

    After the paper is published, it means accepting the supervision of academia and the whole society. If the author or others discover defects in the paper or conduct violations of scientific research standards in the relevant research process, they should immediately inform the editorial department. The editorial department should assist the author to withdraw the paper or issue an amendment statement or errata after verification and confirmation. Those who are indeed academic misconduct will be punished in accordance with the relevant procedures and regulations of academic misconduct. Contributing authors should be responsible for the lifetime of their papers.

    2. The publication ethics of peer-reviewed experts

    2.1 Peer review is an important mechanism for controlling the quality of papers.

    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. Reviewing experts are relevant experts with academic experience and academic achievements in a certain research field, generally with deputy senior and above titles or doctorate degrees. Reviewers should adhere to the standards of academic evaluation, encourage innovation (rather than stifle innovation), and independently (rather than entrust to third parties) to seriously, professionally, and originality, innovation, scientificity, authenticity, and practicality of paper results And independent review, make fair, impartial and objective evaluations and check-ups on the paper, focusing on whether the significance of the research is important, whether the research objectives are clear, whether the research topic is cutting-edge, whether the research design is scientific, whether the research method is appropriate, and whether the research process is Standards, whether the research data is reliable, whether the research results are correct, whether the research conclusions are innovative, academic value and practical value, whether there is academic misconduct, academic improperness, academic anomie, etc., to help the editorial department to make judgments on papers and ensure the acceptance of papers Academic standards.

    2.2 The review experts should abide by the relevant requirements for the review of the paper.

    The evaluation experts should establish a high sense of responsibility and dedication, not for fame and fortune, not to count the gains and losses, and to be willing to invest, reflecting the social responsibility and professional value of scholars. To review the paper on time, provide detailed revision opinions and suggestions for the problems existing in the paper, fill in the detailed review comments, and feed back to the editorial department within the specified time to help the author improve the quality of the paper and improve the writing of the paper. If it cannot be completed on time, the situation should be explained in a timely manner. The editorial department will establish a dynamic adjustment and optimization mechanism for review experts based on the review quality and review status of experts.

    2.3 The review experts should strictly follow the relevant ethical guidelines and codes of conduct.

    The reviewing experts must strictly implement academic ethics, judge only the academic papers reviewed, and do not make evaluations and personal attacks on the authors. To prevent academic bias or abuse of academic power. Resolutely oppose the review that violates academic ethics, the review that does not follow the review procedure, the review that violates the conflict of interest regulations and confidentiality regulations, and firmly opposes the misappropriation of the content of the thesis, the acquisition of improper benefits and other academic misconduct. At the same time, the reviewed papers are kept strictly confidential, and are not circulated or discussed to others, and the data, opinions and conclusions of the reviewed papers are not used and published. If you want to use it, you must obtain the author's consent. Authors should not be arbitrarily required to cite their own or related papers with which they have an interest. All review comments and information must be kept confidential and not for personal use. The reviewing experts should inform the editorial department in time if they receive conflict-interested papers due to competition or cooperation with the author, author's unit or enterprise. After reviewing the paper, the reviewer should destroy the manuscript and 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 ideological ethics, high-level scientific and professional literacy, and well-trained subject editing capabilities, meet relevant qualifications and job training requirements, and abide by relevant national policies and regulations on journal management and various system regulations of journals. Adhere to the correct publication guidance, accurately grasp and carry out editing, publishing and other activities around the purpose of running a journal, business scope, adhere to the "three review and three school" system, and strictly implement the review process. After receiving the manuscript from the editorial department, all papers are first tested for repetition rate (similarity), and all papers that pass the preliminary examination are sent to external review for review. Establish a current periodical responsible editor system. Respect the opinions of reviewing experts, give full play to the role of the editing committee, scientifically review and objectively deal with academic issues of the paper, and combine the opinions of reviewing experts to make a reasonable and fair judgment on the rejection, acceptance or rejection of the paper. Provide reasons for rejection. Not only the identity of the author, but the quality of the paper, and the final check on the quality of the paper. Put the quality of papers and journals in the supremacy, cherish the brand, academic value and social responsibility of journals.

    3.2 Editors should play a monitoring role in the construction of academic ethics.

    Abide by academic publishing ethics, consciously abide by research integrity, academic ethics, academic norms and publishing ethics, defend academic dignity, improve academic supervision, create a good academic environment, and maintain the benign and sustainable development of the academic ecosystem. We must resolutely oppose the submission of editorial opinions that violate academic and ethical standards, resolutely oppose violations of conflicts of interest, violations of confidentiality requirements, misappropriation of the content of papers, interference with review, solicitation of improper interests, and other academic misconducts related to editors. Editors should not be influenced by their interests to reject or accept papers. It is necessary to maintain the authenticity of the reviewing records, and have the obligation to keep and keep confidential the materials in all aspects of reviewing and revising. Except for the relevant authors and reviewing experts, the editor should not disclose the information of the submitted paper to others. The editor should ensure that the information submitted by the author cannot be used for editing personal research or for others to research, and ensure that the identity of the reviewing expert and other relevant personnel of the editorial department during the blind review process is protected.

    3.3 The editor should be the last barrier against academic misconduct.

    Editors should follow the "Statement on Promoting the Integrity and Ethical Standards of Academic Publishing and Scientific Research" of 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, and abide by the system regulations of the editorial department. Improve the ability to prevent and control academic misconduct. To combine education, prevention, supervision, and discipline, establish a linkage mechanism with reviewing experts, editorial boards, academic committees, etc., make full use of expert resources and technical capabilities, and strengthen the front-end, mid-end, and back-end control of the manuscript review process To eliminate academic misconduct as much as possible in the bud, and minimize the negative effects of academic misconduct. If scientific research tolerance fails, academic contention should be encouraged, academic criticism should be advocated, and a complaint mechanism should be established. Academic misconduct does not include unintentional errors and differences in opinions.

    4. Implement "zero tolerance" for academic misconduct.

    According to the "Several Opinions on Further Strengthening the Construction of Integrity in Scientific Research" of the General Office of the State Council and the "Regulations on Investigation and Handling of Cases of Integrity in Scientific Research (Trial)", "Regulations on the Handling of Violations of Scientific and Technological Activities (Consultation Draft)" The memorandum of cooperation for joint disciplinary actions by persons responsible for dishonesty and other relevant regulations of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. If academic misconduct is discovered before or after the publication of the paper, the authors shall be strictly held accountable and resolutely punished in accordance with the relevant regulations. Reminders, reviews, rejections, withdrawals, notifications, blacklists, and notifications to the author's unit, on the Shandong Science homepage and WeChat public account and other measures, will never accommodate, never condone, never condone, build self-discipline The research integrity and publishing ethics system that attaches equal importance to other disciplines.

  • 2020-05-26 Visited: 3123