In order to strengthen the academic integrity construction, standardize the process of paper submission, editing, publishing, and resist academic misconduct，CARSOLOGICA SINICA follows the recognized publishing ethics. The authors, reviewers and editors should perform the following duties.
1. Duties of authors
(1)Authors should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
(2)The manuscript should be an original research work (except for the review), and the test materials, data, photographs, images, etc. shall be authentic and reliable. No data or facts shall be forged,deceived or plagiarized.
(3)All authors should be contributor to the work,there’s no dispute in the author order,the correspondence author should ensure that publication of the paper be authorized by the other authors.The “third party” to provide paper writing services is resolutely resisted.
(4)The manuscript submitted does not involve state secrets or any infringement issues related to intellectual property.In particular,undisputed maps should be provided.
(5)The citing sources have been clearly indicated in the cited references and a list should be made in the form of bibliographic references.The funding information related to the research in the manuscript should be disclosed.
(6)Author should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently,the editorial office of CARSOLOGICA SINICA deem it as unethical publishing behavior,which is unacceptable.
(7)Author should respect the evaluation opinions of the reviewers. In case of any objection, author should submit a written statement to the editorial office, and make detailed explanation for each review opinion.
2. Duties of reviewers
Double-blind peer review processes are conducted in processing manuscripts.Authors are also encouraged to suggest reviewers during the submission process.
(1) Reviewers should review manuscripts in time according to the agreement. If he/she can't review on time for some reasons, he/she should inform the editorial office in time and return the review.
(2) Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal purposes.
(3) Any reviewer selected is expected to conduct an objective review of the manuscript, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript.
(4) If the selected reviewer feels not qualified to review the research content of the manuscript or cannot complete the review within the specified time, he/she should inform the editorial office in time.
(5) If a manuscript is found to have serious academic misconduct,such as multi-submission, misconceptions, suspected plagiarism or fabrication, it should be reported to the editorial office truthfully.
(6) If there is a conflict of interest resulting from competitive,collaborative,or other relationship or connections between the reviewer and any of the author, funding unit or other related parties, the reviewer is obliged to inform the editorial office and recuse himself /herself from reviewing the manuscript.
3. Duties of editors
(1) Based on the review report of the Editorial Review Board, the editor has complete responsibility and authority to accept, reject or request modifications to the manuscript.
(2) The manuscript should be processed in a timely manner, and the expert review opinions and editorial decision should be fed back to the author in a timely manner.
(3) Editors are obligated to keep the information of reviewers confidential and to withhold comments that are offensive, demeaning or unobjective from the authors.
(4) Editors should not disclose or use any unpublished materials in his/her own research without the express written consent of the author.
(5) Editors are obliged to remind the author of possible copyright and intellectual property problems after the change of signature, funding unit and order.
(6) Editors are obliged to hold the author and reviewer accountable for misconduct.Once an academic ethics complaint is filed or published, editor must take effective measures. If necessary, promptly publicize corrections, clarifications, withdrawals or apologies.
(7) Editors must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
