Publication Ethics Statement
Publication Ethics Statement
(First Edition, February 2020)
To strengthen and enhance the academic norms, research integrity, and academic ethics in the process of academic paper writing, reviewing, and editing, to establish a good academic atmosphere, to promote the spirit of science, to resolutely resist academic misconduct, and to establish and maintain a fair, just, and open academic exchange environment, the Editorial Office of the Knowledge Management Forum has formulated this publishing ethics statement. We commit to strictly adhering to and implementing national policies and regulations related to academic ethics and editorial publishing, regulate the behavior of authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, etc., throughout the publishing process, and accept supervision from the academic community and society at large.
I. Publication Ethics of Authors
1. Academic papers are an important part of scientific research. Academic papers are an important form of scientific research achievements and also a rigorous scientific research process. Academic papers should adhere to the principles of seeking truth from facts, being honest and trustworthy, actively exploring unknown issues in science, daring to question, carefully verifying, and seeking scientific truth. Adhere to the importance of research significance, the clarity of research objectives, the frontier nature of research topics, the scientific nature of research design, the scientific nature of research methods, the standardization of the research process, the reliability of research data, the correctness of research results, and the innovation of research conclusions during the paper writing process. Academic papers should be based on solid scientific research, uphold scientific research integrity, maintain academic ethics, adhere to responsible scientific research behaviors, and abide by the academic mission and social responsibilities of scientific research.
2. Academic misconduct is a cancer in academic papers. Authors should fully recognize the serious harm of academic misconduct, strengthen the education of scientific research integrity and academic ethics, and comply with documents such as the Code of Scientific Ethics for Scientific and Technical Workers (Trial), Opinions on Strengthening the Construction of Norms for Scientific Research Behaviors, Several Opinions on Further Strengthening the Construction of Scientific Research Integrity, and Opinions on Further Promoting the Spirit of Scientists and Strengthening the Construction of Work Style and Academic Atmosphere. Be strict with themselves, enhance the awareness of self-discipline, strengthen self-restraint, increase the sense of subject responsibility, stick to the bottom line of integrity, avoid being eager for quick success and instant benefits, oppose fraud, and consciously and firmly fight against academic corruption. Resolutely resist all kinds of academic misconduct, improper academic behaviors, and academic irregularities, such as plagiarism, forgery, tampering, inappropriate authorship, multiple submissions of the same manuscript, duplicate publication, as well as ghostwriting and ghost submission, inappropriate citation, disclosure of secrets, infringement, interference with the review process, etc. Resolutely implement the "Five No" Code of Conduct of the China Association for Science and Technology and eradicate the cancer in academic papers.
3. Authors are the main contributors to academic papers. Authors should make substantial contributions to academic papers, be the direct responsible parties for the papers, and own the copyright of the achievements. The contributions of authors are reflected in research conception, scheme design, literature research, discussion and putting forward important viewpoints, technical support and guarantee, data collection and (or) processing, data analysis and (or) interpretation, paper writing, paper review and modification, etc. Oppose false authorship. When submitting a manuscript, the "Academic Integrity Statement of Submitting Authors" must be signed. If there is a conflict of interest, an explanation should be provided, and integrity support materials related to the academic paper should be submitted.
4. Author attribution reflects the intellectual property rights and academic contributions of authors. The principle of authorship should follow the Integrity Reminder on Common Problems or Errors in Authorship of Academic Papers issued by the Research Ethics Committee of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The person who makes the most important contribution to the academic paper should be listed as the first author, and other significantly contributing individuals can be listed as corresponding authors. The first author (or corresponding author) should be responsible for the research quality, academic standard, authenticity, and reliability of the paper, as well as the authenticity of all co-authors. All authors who have made substantial contributions can be listed as authors and provide a statement of author contributions, which will be publicly released as part of the paper. The order of author attribution should be jointly determined by all authors according to their contribution degrees to the paper. In principle, the authors cannot be changed after the manuscript is submitted. If, for special reasons, an author needs to be added or deleted before the paper is published, the first author or corresponding author should promptly submit a relevant written application to the editorial office, obtain the consent of all authors, sign the "Consent for Authorship Change", and the change can be made only after the editorial office approves it. All listed authors should read and agree to the publication of the final revised manuscript. Other personnel who have participated in the research assistance work but are not suitable to be listed as authors can be included in the acknowledgments.
5. Academic papers should attach great importance to intellectual property rights and information security. The submitted papers should be guaranteed to be first published in this journal, and any infringement issues related to intellectual property rights should be eliminated. Papers should not involve state secrets or institutional business secrets. Papers related to secrets must be declassified in advance. In case of any issues related to intellectual property rights and information security, the authors shall bear the responsibilities. Before the paper is accepted, the author must sign an agreement on intellectual property rights and information security with the editorial office. The author can check the review process through the submission system and shall not submit the manuscript to other journals before receiving the acceptance or rejection notice from the editorial office. Otherwise, it will be regarded as academic misconduct and the author will bear the responsibilities.
6. The standardized citation of references is an important manifestation of academic norms. References indicate the internal connections between academic inheritance and scientific research. Whenever referring to the literature of others or being inspired or influenced by the thoughts and viewpoints of others, the source should be accurately and completely indicated. Otherwise, it will be regarded as plagiarism. Pay attention to appropriate and reasonable citation, and avoid phenomena such as irrelevant citation, excessive citation, missed citation, wrong citation, anonymous citation, excessive citation, blind citation, and excessive self-citation. All cited documents must clearly indicate the source of citation and provide the citation source in the form of bibliographic references complying with the national standard (GB 7714-2015 Information and Documentation — Rules for Bibliographic References).
7. Attach great importance to the standardization of research data and management. Ensure the originality, authenticity, reliability, and integrity of the provided data, and eliminate all data falsification behaviors. If the paper involves key data and analysis, the author needs to provide the original data set and the network platform address or computer screenshot file of the original analysis to the editorial office, so that reviewers and the editorial office can review and judge the data of the paper. It is recommended that authors keep the original data for more than 3 years for future reference. Comply with the Measures for the Management of Scientific Data issued by the General Office of the State Council and strengthen data management, openness, and sharing.
8. Establish an error correction and academic self-purification mechanism. The ability to correct errors is a purification mechanism for the self-restraint and self-development of the scientific community and an important manifestation of the scientific spirit and sense of responsibility. After the paper is published, it means that it will be supervised by the academic community and the whole society. If the author or others find defects in the paper or behaviors that violate scientific research norms in the relevant research process, they should immediately inform the editorial office. After verification and confirmation, the editorial office should assist the author in withdrawing the paper or publishing a correction statement or corrigendum. For those who are indeed involved in academic misconduct, disciplinary actions will be taken in accordance with the relevant procedures and regulations on academic misconduct. Submitting authors should be responsible for their papers for life.
II. Publication Ethics of Peer Reviewers
9. Peer review is an important control mechanism for the quality of papers. Peer review is an academic process in which third-party experts are invited to make scientific and professional judgments on papers, and it is the most important review and control mechanism for the research significance, academic and application value of papers. Reviewers are members of the journal editorial board and specially invited qualified experts. Reviewers should adhere to the standards of academic evaluation, encourage innovation (rather than stifle it), independently (rather than entrust it to a third party) conduct serious, professional, and independent reviews of the originality, innovation, scientific nature, authenticity, and practicality of the paper achievements, make fair, just, and objective evaluations and reviews of the papers, and focus on examining whether the research significance is important, whether the research objectives are clear, whether the research topics are at the forefront, whether the research design is scientific, whether the research methods are appropriate, whether the research process is standardized, whether the research data are reliable, whether the research results are correct, whether the research conclusions are innovative, the size of the academic value and practical value, and whether there are academic misconduct, improper academic behaviors, academic irregularities, etc., so as to help the editorial office make decisions on whether to accept or reject the papers and ensure the academic standards of the accepted papers.
10. Reviewers should comply with the relevant requirements for paper review. Reviewers should establish a high sense of responsibility and dedication spirit, not be driven by fame and fortune, not care about gains and losses, be willing to invest, and reflect the social responsibilities and professional values of scholars. Review the papers on time, put forward detailed modification opinions and suggestions on the problems existing in the papers, fill in detailed review comments, and feedback them to the editorial office within the specified time to help the authors improve the quality of the papers and perfect the writing of the papers. If unable to complete the review on time, the situation should be explained in a timely manner. The editorial office will establish a dynamic adjustment and optimization mechanism for reviewers based on the review quality and review situation of the experts.
11. Reviewers should strictly follow the relevant ethical guidelines and codes of conduct. Reviewers should strictly abide by academic ethics norms, make judgments only on the academic aspects of the reviewed papers, and not make evaluations and personal attacks on the authors. Prevent academic prejudice or abuse of academic power. Resolutely oppose reviews that violate academic ethics, reviews that do not comply with the review procedures, reviews that violate the provisions on conflicts of interest and confidentiality regulations, and resolutely oppose the misappropriation of paper content, seeking improper benefits, and other academic misconduct. At the same time, keep the reviewed papers strictly confidential, do not show them to others for reading or discussion, and do not use or publish the data, viewpoints, and conclusions of the reviewed papers. If you want to use them, you must obtain the consent of the author. Do not randomly ask the author to cite your own papers or the papers related to you with which there are interests. All review comments and information must be kept confidential and should not be used for personal purposes. When reviewers receive papers to be reviewed that have conflicts of interest due to competition or cooperation with the authors of the papers, their affiliated units, or enterprises, they should promptly inform the editorial office. After reviewing the papers, reviewers should destroy the manuscripts and relevant supporting materials.
III. Publication Ethics of Editors
12. Editors should become the guardians of the quality of academic papers. Editors should have good political and moral qualities, high-level scientific and professional qualities, well-trained subject editing capabilities, comply with relevant national policies and regulations on periodical management and various institutional norms of the periodical, adhere to the "three rounds of review and three rounds of proofreading" system, and strictly perform the review procedures. All papers that pass the initial review will be sent for external review (blind review), and all papers that pass the second review will be tested for the repetition rate (similarity). Establish a system of responsible editors for each issue of the journal and each article. Respect the opinions of reviewers, give play to the role of the editorial board, scientifically examine and objectively handle the academic issues of the papers, make reasonable and fair judgments on whether to return the papers for revision, accept them, or reject them in combination with and referring to the opinions of reviewers, and provide reasons for rejection. Focus only on the quality of the papers rather than the identities of the authors, and ensure the final quality of the papers. Place the quality of papers and the quality of the journal in a supreme position, and cherish the brand, academic value, and social responsibilities of the journal.
13. Editors should play a monitoring role in the construction of academic ethics. Comply with academic publication ethics norms, consciously abide by scientific research integrity, academic ethics, academic norms, and publication ethics, safeguard academic dignity, improve academic supervision, create a good academic environment, and maintain the healthy and sustainable development of the academic ecosystem. Resolutely oppose putting forward editorial opinions that violate academic and ethical standards, and resolutely oppose academic misconduct related to editing, such as violating the provisions on conflicts of interest, violating confidentiality requirements, misappropriating paper content, interfering with the review, seeking improper benefits, and other relevant behaviors. Editors should not reject or accept papers influenced by interests. Maintain the authenticity of the review records, and have the obligation to keep and keep confidential the materials of each link of review and modification. Except for the relevant authors and reviewers, editors should not disclose the information of the submitted papers to others. Editors should ensure that the information of the authors' submissions is not used for their own research or the research of others, and ensure that the identities of reviewers and other relevant personnel in the editorial office are protected during the blind review process.
14. Editors should become the last barrier to curb academic misconduct. Editors should follow the Statement on Promoting Scientific Research Integrity and Ethical Norms in Academic Publishing issued by the Chinese Society for Editology of Scientific and Technical Journals and the Definition of Academic Misconduct in Journals in the Academic Publishing Standards issued by the National Press and Publication Standardization Technical Committee, comply with the institutional norms of the editorial office, and continuously improve their prevention and control capabilities of academic misconduct. Combine education, prevention, supervision, and disciplinary action, establish a linkage mechanism with reviewers, the editorial board, the academic committee, etc., make full use of expert resources and technical capabilities, strengthen the front-end, middle-end, and back-end control of the paper review process, eliminate academic misconduct in the bud as much as possible, and minimize the negative impact of academic misconduct. Scientific research tolerates failure, encourages academic debates, advocates academic criticism, and establishes an appeal mechanism. Academic misconduct does not include unintentional errors and differences in viewpoints.
15. Implement "zero tolerance" for academic misconduct. In accordance with the Several Opinions on Further Strengthening the Construction of Scientific Research Integrity issued by the General Office of the State Council and relevant regulations of relevant national departments, such as the Rules for the Investigation and Handling of Scientific Research Integrity Cases (Trial), the Provisions on the Handling of Irregularities in Scientific and Technological Activities (Draft for Soliciting Comments), and the Memorandum of Cooperation on Implementing Joint Disciplinary Actions against Relevant Dishonest Responsible Entities in the Field of Scientific Research, as well as the relevant regulations of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, once academic misconduct is found before or after the paper is published, the responsibilities of the author should be strictly investigated, and disciplinary actions should be resolutely taken in accordance with relevant regulations. Measures such as integrity reminders, self-criticism, rejection of manuscripts, withdrawal of published papers, notification, inclusion in the blacklist, and notification to the author's affiliated unit should be implemented according to the severity of the circumstances. There should be no accommodation, no leniency, and no connivance, and a three-dimensional system of scientific research integrity of "not wanting to, not being able to, and not daring to" should be constructed.
Pubdate: 2025-03-21
Viewed:
38
