Complex System Modeling and Simulation (the Journal), sponsored by Tsinghua University, published by Tsinghua University Press (TUP) , is responsible for maintaining the rigour of scientific research and protecting researchers’ intellectual property rights. To comply with the publishing ethics rules of the Publishing Ethics Committee of the Journal, the Journal’s Publication Ethics has been formulated as a guideline for editing and publication. The Journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record. The Journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record. The Journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and subscribes to its principles on how to deal with acts of misconduct, thereby committing to investigating allegations of misconduct to ensure the integrity of research.

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

Each peer-reviewed article published in the Journal is an approval of the progress of scientific research in the fields of complex system modeling, simulation, optimization, and control. It directly reflects the quality of the authors’ work and the institutions that support it. Peer review is designed to support and embody scientific methods. Therefore, it is very important that all parties involved in the act of the publication, including the author, the Editor, the Reviewer, the Publisher, and social organization, should perform Publication Ethics as moral behavior standards. The Journal recognizes Publication Ethics as moral behavior and takes our duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously.

1.1     The paper published in the Journal should be the original scientific paper and the content should be relevant with the Journal’s scope of complex system modeling, simulation, optimization, and control.

1.2     A paper should contain sufficient detail, such as the research work and the experimental method, data must be guaranteed to be true. If any reference and open literature resources are quoted in the paper, they should be listed in detail for peer evaluation.

1.3     Splitting one research result into fragmented papers to submit should be avoided.

1.4     Contention issue and the words in the paper should be clear and concise. Photographs and graphs in the paper should be of high quality. If the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that has to be appropriately cited or quoted.

1.5     Please give clear indication of research funding sources in the paper, if the research work is supported by the funds.

1.6     All papers submitted to the Journal will be screened for plagiarism by Crosscheck software iThenticate.

1.7    After the publication of the paper, the copyright belongs to the authors.

2.1    Authors should cherish the opportunity of publication on the Journal and maintain the reputation of the Journal.

2.2      Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. When submitting the manuscript, all authors certify that the manuscript is original and has not been published in or submitted to other journals.

2.3    Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant intellectual contribution to the theoretical development, system or experimental design, prototype development, execution, and/or the analysis and interpretation of data associated with the work contained in the article, and contributed to drafting the article or reviewing and/or revising it for intellectual content. The others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all the authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication. The AI tool should not be listed as an author.

2.4    Please indicate one author as the corresponding author in the case of articles with multiple authors. The corresponding author is responsible for communicating with the Editorial Office, overseeing the publication process and ensuring the integrity of the final document.

2.5    Once the list and order of authors has been established, it should not be altered without the permission of all living authors of that article. Owing to special circumstances, if necessary, the corresponding author should propose a written application including the consent of all the authors before the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) makes the final decision for the paper. It can be modified after EiC approval.

2.6    It is the author's obligation to correct the errors in the article no matter the error is found by author or the Reviewers.

2.7    All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible. Starting in 2025, a statement of conflict of interest should be published in the final version, and if there are no conflicts of interest to declare, it can be stated as “The author(s) declare no conflicts of interest”.

3.1    For the Journal, the EiC is ultimately accountable for acceptance or rejection of an article.

3.2    Articles submitted by the EiC or an associate editor (AE) shall be handled and reviewed by another EiC or AE of the Journal.

3.3    The Editorial Office should treat all manuscripts fairly. The Editorial Office should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without considering the ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, age, or affiliation of the authors. However, the Editorial Office may consider the relevance of the manuscript by the authors in its early period or to other manuscripts contemporaneously. The Editorial Office can directly reject the manuscript if it does not accord with the requirements of the Journal in terms of theme, breadth, depth, and English expression.

3.4    The Editorial Office should respect the independence of the author's ideas. For unpublished manuscripts, the Editorial Office may not use their content without the consent of the author. The Editorial Office must not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the Reviewers, potential reviewers, EiC, and the Publisher, as appropriate.

3.5    The Editorial Office should exercise their responsibilities on the basis of the EiC’s or the AE's suggestion of whether the paper needs to be modified or can be published. Regardless of the outcome of the review, the Reviewers’ comments and marked articles are normally returned to the author.

3.6     It is essential that the Editorial Office ensures that the anonymity of the Reviewers is protected during the review process. Editors shall not disclose the contents of the manuscripts under review. Everything within this review process must be done openly, but the reviewer anonymity policy can protect the review results from the interference of the authors.

3.7    The Editorial Office should respect the opinions of EiC and AE. The Editorial Office must not arbitrarily reject the Reviewers’ comments unless the Editorial Office deems them clearly irrelevant, incorrect, or otherwise inappropriate. In particular, the Editorial Office should not arbitrarily ignore the Reviewers’ suggestions for modifications of the article without sufficient technical cause to do so.

3.8     If an article is returned for revision, it is important to make clear to the corresponding author whether on the one hand the article will be accepted if the indicated changes are made or, on the other hand, the article will be resubmitted to the Reviewers for further review.

3.9    Once the EiC confirms that the manuscript can be published, the Editorial Office should prepare for publication as soon as possible.

3.10    The submitted manuscript written by the editorial staff him/herself should be handled by other editorial staff or AE who has no conflict of interest.

3.11    If there is sufficient evidence to show that the published paper has mistake(s), the Editorial Office should take corrective action whenever possible, and the corrected text can be provided by the mistake finder or the author of the manuscript.

4.1     Manuscript review is an essential step in the process of publishing, and peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication. Therefore, the Journal shares the view of many people that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to perform a fair share of reviews.

4.2    The Journal follows a single-blind review process. Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify and return the manuscript to the Editorial Office immediately. Alternatively, they should remind the Editorial Office of the possibility of delaying the review and provide a possible return time.

4.3     On the basis of the standards of maintaining a high level of scientific and textual expression, the Reviewers should objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, the level of the experiments and the theory, and the rationality of the interpretation and inference. The Reviewers should respect the independence of the author's thought.

4.4     Selected reviewers shall not have a personal or business relationship with the authors or partner of the paper, affecting the evaluation impartially.

4.5    Information contained in an article under review is confidential and shall not be shared with others. Reviewers should not use nonpublic information contained in an article to advance their own research or financial interests.

4.6    Reviewers’ comments should be explained sufficiently on the basis of their judgment to be understood by the Editorial Office and the author. The facts or opinions in the evaluation comments should be attached to related literature to avoid a lack of basis assertions.

4.7     Reviewers should identify whether the important relevant published work has been cited by the authors. Guiding the author to cite the Reviewer's own paper is absolutely forbidden. The authors should be reminded of the substantive similarities between the author's manuscript content and published papers or manuscripts submitted to other journals.

4.8    Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

The Journal follows a single-blind review process in which the Reviewer’s name and information are withheld from the author(s). A regular review process for each submitted manuscript consists of three stages: initial check, preliminary assessment, and peer review.

Initial Check: The submissions are initially checked by the Editorial Office. At this stage, rejection without a review decision would be made for the submissions that do not meet the aims and scope and/or the ethical requirements of the Journal. In addition, submissions are screened for plagiarism by iThenticate. Those with high overlap scores might also be rejected directly without further review.

Preliminary Assessment: Manuscripts that pass through the initial check will be preliminarily assessed by the EiCs and then the handling editors. At this stage, the EiCs have sole discretion, with the help of the handling editors, on whether to send the manuscript for peer review or reject it without review. When an EiC is listed as an author, another EiC or an AE will be assigned to assess the manuscript.

Peer Review: Each manuscript is assigned to at least two reviewers, and a minimum of two favorable reviews are required for a paper to be considered for publication. The final decisions are made by the EiCs.

All the manuscripts would be evaluated for their relevance, quality and originality, potential interest to the Journal’s readership, and clarity (including clear tables and graphics, the standard of technically written English).

In pursuit of advancing knowledge and fostering academic discourse within specific domains, the Journal occasionally publishes guest edited content (e.g., special issues, guest edited series) dedicated to exploring cutting-edge research, emerging trends, and significant developments in focused areas of study.

All guest-edited content shall be proposed prior to calling for papers. Upon approval by the EiCs, a submission option is made available on the submission system, where all manuscripts are assessed according to the Journal’s standard initial check, preliminary assessment, and peer-review criteria. The only difference is that manuscripts that pass through the initial check are preliminarily assessed by the Leading Guest Editor and then the handling Guest Editors, and final decisions are made by the Leading Guest Editor. When the Leading Guest Editor or Guest Editors are listed as authors, an EiC will be assigned to assess the manuscript.

The Journal follows the COPE position statement in regard to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Since TUP is a member of the STM, the Journal also follows the Ethical and Practical Guidelines released by the STM Generative AI in Scholarly Communications.

AI tools should not be listed or cited as authors or coauthors. AI tools cannot be used to create, alter, or manipulate original research data and images. AI tools can be used to help authors in formatting, language editing, and correcting.

Author(s) should disclose the use of AI tools with sufficient details at submission in the cover letter and disclose details of how the AI tools were used within Method, Acknowledgment or other related sections.

Reviewers and Editors should not upload the manuscript or any part of it to a public generative AI platform to keep the manuscript confidential before final publication.

The Journal will monitor this development and will adjust or refine this policy when appropriate.

The Journal acknowledges its responsibility to correct any scientifically relevant errors in published papers that may impact their scientific interpretation. Once approved by the Editorial Office and EiCs, there will be a mark indicating that the paper has a correction. A correction is a distinct publication that is linked to the original paper. It serves to inform all readers that a significant change has been made, and the updated version is available on the website. Notification will be sent to all relevant indexing databases to ensure that their records are updated as well.

Corrections can be submitted if:

• There are scientifically relevant errors, e.g., missing sections/tables/figures, raw data errors, images, tables, and figure errors OR,
• There are any added/deleted/replaced references.

Correction must be submitted separately by the corresponding author with the approval of all coauthors. The original article title, author list, and details of the correction should be included in the new manuscript.

The findings and conclusions will be unreliable if a published paper is found with scientific or ethical issues. To correct the scientific record, the published paper should be retracted. Retractions could be requested by the author(s), readers, or the Editors, and they will be finally decided by the EiCs. The Journal adheres to COPE’s Retraction Guidelines and procedures for handling retractions.

The original publication will be retained on the platform with a “Retracted” watermark, and the explanation for the retraction is provided in a note linked to the watermarked paper. A paper will only be fully removed from journal websites and indexing databases under rare and exceptional circumstances, such as when retaining the article online will be unlawful or pose a risk of substantial harm.

When an investigation is ongoing or the evidence is inconclusive, an Expression of Concern may be issued. Editors believe that it is essential to inform readers about potential issues within the paper to uphold journal transparency:

• There is a suspicion of academic misconduct within the paper, yet the evidence is insufficient to determine it OR,
• The results of the study are suspected to be unreliable, but the author(s)’ institution is unwilling to initiate an investigation OR,
• Conflicting interpretations exist among the authors OR,
• An investigation is in progress, and final conclusions may require an extended period.

Appeals only apply to manuscripts that have been peer reviewed. Authors who want to appeal concerning the peer-review process and editorial decisions should present substantial evidence or new information/data as well as point-by-point responses to the Reviewers’ comments and the Editors’ decisions.

The authors must not submit their manuscript elsewhere until they receive a final decision or decide to withdraw their manuscript from consideration and have informed the Journal accordingly. Each appeal is assessed on its individual merits. Editors consider only one appeal per manuscript, and the EiCs’ decision on the appeal is final.

Readers who have concerns/complaints about published papers may contact the Editorial Office while simultaneously presenting the details of the concerns/complaints and the evidence. A lack of evidence or complaints of personal attacks would be regarded as vexatious and would be ignored.

The Editorial Office will investigate together with EiCs in accordance with the guidelines published by COPE.

The Journal only publishes original content, and author(s) should ensure the originality of their works. Author(s) should not submit the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time, and should wait for the final decision on the manuscript before submitting the research to another journal. Once unethical publishing behavior is found, an investigation or action is taken on the basis of the COPE code of conduct.

Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. All submissions will be checked for plagiarism via iThenticate. A paper is rejected if more than 25% of it is found to be similar to a previously published journal article. If plagiarism is detected after publication, an investigation or action is taken on the basis of the COPE principles of plagiarism.

Reuse of text work should be appropriately cited or quoted. Authors should obtain the appropriate permission prior to publication where the research involves any third-party figures, tables, and images.

The fabrication/falsification of data or images is not allowed and will be regarded as misconduct, which will lead to a retraction of the affected publication.

The authors will have the chance to double check symbols, formulas, and figure legends before final publication, as these may accidentally have changed during typesetting. After final publication, substantial changes in content, such as new results and corrected values, are not allowed without the approval of the EiC. Erratum might be needed for further corrections.

The Publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of the published content in the Journal.

16.1   All the articles in the Journal shall be published on an open access basis.

16.2  The Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) shall apply to all the articles published in the Journal.

16.3  Copyright in articles published in the Journal shall remain vested in the authors or original copyright holders.

16.4  The Journal is a subsidized open access journal where TUP pays for the publishing costs incurred by the Journal before 31 December 2025. The authors do not have to pay any article processing charge for open access publication.

16.5  The Journal has no advertising business and will not post any advertisements.