Publication ethics are formulated to further strengthen the standardization of academic and scientific research integrity in the processes of writing, reviewing, editing, proofreading and publishing of papers, to prevent academic misconduct, to foster a positive academic environment and to elevate the quality of publications.

I. Ethics for Authors

1. It should be ensured that each author makes a substantial academic contribution to the manuscript and agrees to the list and order of authors, with no disputes over authorship. All authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

2. The manuscript should be presented in a scientific and accurate manner with no ghostwriting involved and the author assumes full responsibility for the content of the manuscript.

3. The manuscript shall not contain self-plagiarism, textual plagiarism, plagiarism of data, diagrams, formulas, or ideas; it shall not falsify data, information or results; it shall not tamper with key information such as scientific research records, pictures and data, and the content of the manuscript shall not be confidential.

4. When providing objective evaluations and appropriate citations for others’ academic research achievements, authors should correctly label and reference them in the manuscript.

5. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and it is unacceptable. It should be ensured that the manuscript is free from multiple submissions, duplicate publications and split publications.

6. When recommending peer reviewers, authors should refrain from selecting those from their own institutions, research groups, or those with whom they have collaborative projects outside their institutions. It is not allowed to provide false information about peer reviewers.

7. The funding projects involved in the manuscript should be truthfully annotated, and it is permissible to attach supporting documentation for such funding projects. False annotations of funding projects are not allowed.

8. Authors should ensure the citation quality of references, and strictly adhere to the “Information and documentation-Rules for bibliographic references and citations to information resources” (GB/T 7714—2015). In terms of content quotations, authors should ensure the authenticity and reliability of the contents of direct or indirect quotations. Regarding the role of citations, authors should attach great importance to the reasonableness and timeliness of the contents of citations.

9. To respect the independence of peer review, not to interfere with the normal peer review process of this journal and not to inquire about the information of manuscript reviewers through various channels.

10. To respect the evaluation opinions of peer reviewers and revise the manuscripts carefully. If there are any objections, feedback can be provided to the editorial office through internal email or telephone.

11. The contents of manuscripts should be in compliance with China’s relevant laws and regulations on the administration of publications.

II. Ethics for Editors

1. To strictly abide by the editing and publishing standards, and deal with the manuscripts in a fair, impartial and timely manner.

2. To adhere to the principle of confidentiality and maintain the confidentiality of authors’ research contents and the information of peer reviewers.

3. To conduct academic misconduct checks on the submitted manuscripts and make preliminary judgment on whether they meet the standards of academic paper writing and whether they are of value for publication.

4. To review manuscripts from various perspectives and select peer reviewers with a research background compatible with that of the author.  Any peer reviewer who engages in fraudulent activities or abuses his review authority in the review process will be subject to a one-vote veto.

5. When inviting peer reviewers to review manuscripts, editors should respect peer reviewers’ individual will and must not make forced review requests; for the reviewers who are unable to review manuscripts in the near future, actions should be taken to address this in a timely manner so as to enhance the processing efficiency of manuscripts.

6. Editors must not interfere with peer review driven by interests, not influence peer reviewers to make objective judgment and ensure that peer reviewers give independent evaluation opinions on their own in the peer review process.

7. To provide the authors timely and accurate feedback on the evaluation opinions of peer reviewers and to offer the authors comprehensive comments or reasons for withdrawing the manuscripts as far as possible.

8. To respect peer reviewers and authors. If authors have objections to review comments, they are allowed to file a complaint and it will be patiently addressed.

9. It is not allowed to subjectively alter the academic connotation of the graphic and the text, and damage the integrity of the manuscript.

III. Ethics for Peer Reviewers

1. Upon receiving the manuscript, it is essential to assess whether one’s professional research direction aligns with that of the manuscript to be reviewed and to inform us about it within the review system in time.

2. To eliminate biases, review manuscripts diligently, offer objective and fair suggestions for modification, write review reports meticulously, enhance the quality of peer review, and refrain from irresponsible reviewing behavior.

3. Abusing official authority or review power is strictly prohibited.

4. If the manuscript review cannot be completed within the stipulated time, it is imperative for the reviewer to promptly inform the editor for adjustments, and intentional delay in the review process is not allowed.

5. To adhere to the principles of confidentiality of peer review, respect the research findings of authors and refrain from forwarding manuscripts to others for review without authorization.

6. In the process of double-blind review, the peer reviewer shall not inquire about the author’s information in private or engage in discussions with the author.

7. If any academic misconduct or potential conflict of interest is identified during the review process, it should be promptly reported to the editorial office.

IV. Norms for Handling Academic Misconduct

For a manuscript with clear evidence of academic misconduct, its review process will be terminated and the manuscript will be withdrawn; if the manuscript has been accepted but not formally published by other journals, its proposed publication will be canceled and the author will be notified; if it has already been published, a notice of retraction will be published at a later date and the first or corresponding author’s institution will be notified of this incident. In the meanwhile, the retraction of the original manuscript will be notified to all the academic platforms and the original data of the manuscript will be deleted from all literature databases.