As a professional academic journal, the Editorial Board of the Journal of Intelligent Agricultural Mechanization (JIAM) is committed to high standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. The JIAM Editorial Board has developed a journal publication code of ethics with reference to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and other publication ethics codes, and with reference to the actual situation of the journal. Our publication ethics code outlines the publication ethics responsibilities of the JIAM editorial board, authors, peer reviewers, and editors to ensure that they subscribe to the expected standards of ethical behavior and to ensure smooth, rapid, and high-quality publication that benefits everyone from individuals to society and science.
The following guidelines outline the publishing ethics responsibilities of Journal of Intelligent Agricultural Mechanization, and the authors, peer reviewers and editors. The papers submitted to JIAM must abide the following aspects.
1 Duties of Authors
1.1 Expected Quality
(1) Articles must showcase novelty in thoughts and content.
(2) Creditability and reliability of the content establishes the best publication ethics.
(3) Formatting standards should be maintained in piece of publication so that it could be sufficient informative about the research and profile of authors.
(4) Appropriate Citations, referencing of individual articles, authors and publications are expected while writing articles.
(5) JIAM provides sufficient foundation for the timely publication of high quality and standard piece of research articles.
(6) JIAM follow transparent and peer- review process for publications. Authors must agree to participate in the peer-review process.
1.2 Originality and Plagiarism
(1) Authors are expected to present the entirely original piece and should cite or mention in references if content or words of other articles are used.
(2) Every author will be held responsible for the performance and fulfillment with the policy to avoid malpractices and breach of ethical standards of publication.
(3) Authors should assure that the piece of knowledge ready for publication is original copy and have not been published anywhere earlier and is not in consideration for publication anywhere else.
(4) Authors should accept and correct the mistakes and consider the suggestions given by the reviewers.
(5) Authors should bring in knowledge of editor the corrections and retraction of mistakes or error if have identified even after publication.
(6) All submitted manuscripts will be screened by using AMLC system powered by CNKI, text copy ratio should be smaller than 20%.
1.3 Data Access and Retention
(1) Authors are expected to submit the original research articles for peer review, and accept the global access of their work.
(2) Authors should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
1.4 Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
(1) Ethically it is suggestible to authors to not publish the same content of knowledge at various platforms for publication.
(2) Simultaneous submissions or concurrent reviews of same paper are mark of unprofessionalism and are strictly not acceptable.
(3) A paper already published in some national or international journal should not be presented for consideration to again publish at any other Journal. It is considered as breach of novelty.
1.5 Acknowledgement of Sources
(1) During the course of study whatever sources are accessed and used must be mentioned in the article for publication.
(2) Authors must cite and mention in references if the content of some other research work influences the reported work.
(3) Information received during training tenure or confidential services or by third party discussion then it is advisable to use data of somebody else’s research only after getting a written permission from the source.
1.6 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
(1) 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.
(2) All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
(3) Examples of potential conflicts of interest which 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.
1.7 Fundamental Errors in Published Works
(1) When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
(2) If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
2 Duties of Editors
2.1 Publication Decisions
(1) The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions.
(2) The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2 Fair Play
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3 Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
(1) Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
(2) Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should reuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
(3) Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.
(4) If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations. Non-peer reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified.
2.5 Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant even if it is discovered years after publication.
3 Duties of Reviewers
3.1 Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. JIAM shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2 Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3 Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
3.4 Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5 Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6 Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
