首 页 >> 出版道德规范
作者须知
1)作者投稿须为原创作品,投稿及其关键内容从未被发表过,禁止一稿多发;无抄袭,引用观点应清楚注明参考文献信息;文中数据真实可靠、无欺骗性,严格杜绝伪造、篡改或剽窃等学术不端行为。 2) 所有署名作者须对论文研究有贡献,且未遗漏符合作者资格的人;通信作者应确保所发表论文征得共同作者的授权同意,无署名纠纷;在论文发表前更改作者顺序须征得共同作者同意,确保作者署名权的准确性。 3) 应在原稿中写明论文或研究资助信息;对论文发表给予支持或帮助的其他来源或不具备署名资格的人应在致谢中清楚说明。
审者须知
 1) 对论文的评价应客观公正,对论文学术水平及是否达到公开发表标准给出明确意见,避免敷衍或提供模棱两可的评阅意见。 2) 尊重不同学术观点的存在,不发表无礼、贬低或有失客观的评语;发现论文存在严重学术不端行为,应如实向编辑部反馈。 3) 如对评议对象或有关研究方向不熟悉,应如实告知编辑部;对于存在利益冲突或共惠、有碍做出客观评价的论文,可回避审稿。 4) 如受邀进行某篇论文评审,应在规定时间内完成,因客观因素造成拖延,应及时告知编辑部。
 编辑规范
1) 有责任确保审稿过程的公正,减少偏倚;努力保证及时将所收到的稿件安排同行评议和出版,对报告重要发现的论文更应确保发表的时效性。 2) 保证期刊准时按期出版;报道内容新颖、真实可靠,优先发表学科前沿及热点研究成果;杜绝虚假、抄袭、重复发表等学术不端论文的发表。 3) 应建立和维护适合且胜任的审稿人数据库,客观监督审稿人/编委会成员表现,记录其审稿质量及是否按时完成审稿任务。 4) 及时向作者反馈专家评审意见;支持学术讨论,协调作者与审稿人之间的交流;在“背对背”的评审原则下,有义务对审稿人信息进行保密;对于无礼或诽谤性的评阅意见不予采用。 5) 根据论文的重要性、原创性、清晰度及与期刊关联度,有拒绝和接受论文的权力;允许作者对审稿决定提出申诉。

Publication Ethic

For Authors

1) Submissions must be original works, the contributions and its key elements should never been published before; No plagiarism, the bibliography information should be clearly annotated in the references; The data should be true, non-deceptive, and no fudging or plagiarism as well as other academic misconduct action.
 2) All authors should be contributors 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; Alteration of the author order before publication should be consented by all authors to ensure the accuracy of all authors’ rights.
3) Funds information should be indicated in the manuscript; Support or aid for the publication of the work by persons having no author qualifications should be clearly stated in the acknowledgement. 4) The advice and information in CJSS is believed to be true and accurate at the date of its publication, neither the authors, the editors, nor the publishers can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made.
For Reviewers
1) Comments should be objective and fair, definitive opinions on the academic value and whether the paper can meet the publication standards should be given, avoiding ambiguous comments.
2) Respect for diverse academic views, do not make rude, aggressive comments; Serious scientific misconduct should be feedback to the editorial office faithfully.
3) If the work or method is not so familiar to make a peer review, please inform the editorial office to make adjustment; For paper with conflicts in interests or having shared benefits, avoidance of peer review is required. 4) When a peer review invitation is accepted, the review comments should be presented within the planning time; hinders or delays for completion of review should be notified to the editorial office in time.
Editor Conscientiousness
1) Be responsible to ensure the justice of review and reduce bias; Make efforts to ensure the timely process for contribution by arranging peer review and publication promptly, especially for papers with important findings.
 2) Ensure the journal publication on time with schedule; Report novel and authentic researches, give priority to publication of frontier and hot issues; Academic misconducts, such as plagiarism, duplication, are definitely rejected.
 3) A suitable and competent reviewers’ database should be established and maintained; Quality of reviewing tasks by reviews/editorial board members should be objectively recorded and evaluated. 4) Feedback the experts’ review comments to the author timely; Coordinate academic discussions and communications between the author and reviewer; Offensive or defamatory comments are rejected; The author’s appeal on the final decision is accepted.