Peer-Reviewed Experts Publish Ethical Statements

  • Share:

In order to strengthen the construction of academic integrity of “BULLETIN OF THE GEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY”(abbr., THE JOURNAL), standardize the process of writing, submission, editing and publishing papers, prevent the very behavior of academic misconduct, on the basis of the Copyright Law, Publication Ethics in China and Abroad, Academic Publishing Standard: Definition of Academic Misconduct in Periodicals(CY/T 174-2019) and other relevant clauses, while taking the actual situation into account, THE JOURNAL issues an ethical statement to authors, editors of THE JOURNAL and our peers. For more details, please refer to the Publication Ethics Standards and the official website (http://www.publicationethics.org/) of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) formulated by the China National Press and Publication Administration, as well as the Publication Ethics Standards published by European Society of Science Editor (EASE).

Peer review experts should adhere to the principles of fairness, justice, confidentiality and timeliness, making use of their own professional knowledge and ability to scientifically and accurately examine the innovation, scientific nature and practicality of manuscripts. Objective and fair evaluation should be put forward on whether the research method is appropriate, whether the scientific research design is reasonable, whether the results and conclusions are accurate, whether there are leaks of classified information, etc., in order to help editors judge the manuscripts; in order to help the author to improve the quality of the paper, and put forward detailed revision suggestions on the existing problems of the paper.

1. Scientific Evaluation

The review experts should only evaluate the manuscript academically while not make personal comments or personal attacks. The selection and rejection of manuscripts shall not be affected by the race, sex, religion, belief, status, seniority and authority of the contributors, and their views should be clearly stated with sufficient evidence and facts.

2. Timely Review

Review experts should fill in review comments on the review manuscript on time and feed back to the editorial department within the scheduled time. If not, please explain the situation and return the manuscript. Reviewers may be recommended. Without the consent of the editorial department, the reviewer shall not authorize their own students, colleagues, etc., to review instead.

3. Keep Secrets

All review opinions and information must be kept confidential, and shall not be used for personal use, for others to read or discuss, and shall not use or publish the data, opinions and conclusions of the reviewed manuscript. Consent of the author is required for use.

4. Focus on Misconduct

In the process of review, if the reviewer finds the same or similar content between the paper under review and the published paper, the reviewer shall explain the similarity or repeatability between the submitted paper and the published paper and the data to the author according to the cognition scope of their own knowledge. Reviewers are obliged to report the situation to the editorial department when they come across manuscripts that have been reviewed before.

5. Active Avoidance

Reviewers shall not review papers with conflicts of interest arising from competition or cooperation with authors of the paper, units or enterprises.

6. Fulfillment of Obligation

When the reviewer discovers that the author is engaged in research similar to their own, they should not use the review facility to suppress or disparage the author's paper.

Remarks: "Publishing Ethics" in this statement refers to the ethics, professional ethics and code of conduct that should be followed by all subjects in the publishing of sci-tech journals.

These standards shall come into effect as of the date of promulgation.


  • Share:
Visited: