This journal advocates scientific integrity and opposes all forms of academic misconduct. This publication ethics statement stipulates the responsibilities and obligations of authors, editors, editorial board members, reviewers, etc. This statement follows the international standards set by the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For more information, please see: http://publicationethics.org/
1. The paper submitted by the author should be original, without any copyright disputes or confidential content.
2. The authors should be limited to those who have made substantial contributions to the paper. All authors have no dispute over the order of authorship and agree to publish the paper.
3. Please do not submit the same manuscript to two or more publications. The manuscript should not be in any review stage of any other public publication (ISSN/ISBN) at the time of submission. If the manuscript is a revised version of a conference paper, please ensure that the conference paper is not published publicly and indicate this when submitting the manuscript.
4. Authors should not process all or part of the content of published papers (such as dissertations) before submitting their manuscripts, as this may constitute duplicate publication.
5. The cited data and previous work (including self-citations by the author) should be correctly marked in the text.
6. The same research result should not be deliberately split into multiple articles for publication.
7. All calculations, derivations and data should be carefully checked to ensure no deliberate falsification.
8. Funded projects should be correctly labeled and any conflicts of interest should be disclosed proactively.
9. After submitting an article, especially after it is accepted or published, if the author finds any errors in the article, he or she should contact the editorial office so that they can be corrected in a timely manner or other remedial measures can be taken.
1. The editorial department is responsible for the entire process of manuscript receipt, review, acceptance, editing and publishing.
2. If the editorial office considers that the manuscript does not fall within the scope of the journal or the quality of the manuscript obviously does not meet the publication requirements, it may reject the manuscript directly at the preliminary review stage without peer review.
3. After the manuscript passes the initial review, the editorial department should send the manuscript to appropriate reviewers for review and urge the reviewers to return their review opinions in a timely manner. When selecting reviewers, reviewers from the same unit as the author should be avoided.
4. The editorial department must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript content before it is published, and inform reviewers and other personnel who have access to the manuscript before it is published of this principle.
5. Research papers by members of the Editorial Board and Editorial Office may only be published after being peer reviewed.
6. When suspected academic misconduct is found, the editorial department should investigate and verify, contact the author, and listen to the author's explanation and explanation. Once it is confirmed that the author has committed academic misconduct, the manuscript under review will be rejected, and the manuscript that has been published online will be corrected or withdrawn as appropriate. The author will be criticized and educated, and the author's unit may be notified if necessary.
1. Reviewers should conduct reviews objectively and impartially based on their experience and knowledge. If they are unable to review due to conflicts of interest, they should actively recuse themselves and inform the editorial office to select other reviewers.
2. After accepting the review, the reviewer should generally complete the review within 2 months. If the review cannot be completed on time, the editorial department should be informed or other suitable experts should be recommended to the editorial department for review.
3. Reviewers should evaluate the academic level of the manuscript, point out its theoretical significance and engineering application value, whether there is any innovation in the content, and clearly state whether it can be published. For manuscripts that are basically publishable, specific modification suggestions (including charts, formulas, data, etc.) should be given as much as possible. For manuscripts that do not reach the publication level but have desirable features, specific modification suggestions should be given, indicating the materials that need to be supplemented or the charts that can be deleted, etc., so that the author can revise or rewrite. For manuscripts that are not suitable for publication, the problem should be specifically stated, and the direction for further research and reference materials should be proposed.
4. If the reviewers find any academic misconduct such as erroneous views, falsified data, duplicate publication or plagiarism in the manuscript, they should clearly point it out in the review comments and promptly feedback to the editorial department.
5. Reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of the contents of the reviewed manuscripts, should not use the contents of the reviewed manuscripts improperly, and should not deliberately delay the review for competitive purposes.