Publication Ethics of Acta Phytopathologica Sinica
Research integrity is imperative to good science. Promoting scientific integrity and deterring academic misconduct is most important for all academic journals. Based on the actual situation of the journal, Acta Phytopathologica Sinica has formulated ethical norms for publication following the publication ethics stipulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Publication ethics for authors
1. Originality and Plagiarism Authors should ensure that the manuscript submitted for publication to Acta Phytopathologica Sinica must be original and must not have been submitted to any other publication. The manuscript does not involve confidentiality issues. If the work of others is quoted in the manuscript, it is necessary to indicate it in bibliography.
2. Authorship and order of authors All authors agree to submit the manuscript to Acta Phytopathologica Sinica. Authorship should be based on the following principles: 1) substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; 2) drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; 3) final approval of the version to be published; 4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Others who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be recognized in the section for acknowledgments with their permission. There is no dispute about the order of authors. Any change in authorship (adding/deleting authors) or alteration of the order of authors before publication should be consented by all authors. Once the article is accepted, the order of authors should not be changed.
3. Copyright transfer agreement Authors are asked to submit a copyright transfer agreement at the time of submission, confirming the originality of their work and declaring that their article does not involve any national secrets, any infringement issues related to intellectual property rights, or any interest disputes. All authors should sign in the copyright transfer agreement.
4. Corrections and withdrawals Authors should carefully check the content of their articles to ensure accuracy before publication; authors should notify the editorial department and cooperate with editors to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum if a significant error or inaccuracy in their published works is identified.
Publication ethics for editors
1. Treat all manuscripts timely and fairly The editorial board is responsible for deciding to accept or reject manuscripts for publication. The decisions should be based exclusively on the manuscript’s academic and practical application value (importance, originality and clarity), and whether it conforms to the purpose and scope of the journal. In making initial assessments, editors should maintain objectiveness and fairness, should not prejudice the author's institution, title, nationality, etc., and consciously avoid submitting the manuscript that has a conflict of interest with the editor himself/herself.
2. Select reviewers strictly and accurately All original studies should be peer reviewed before publication. The editors should select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field, taking into account the need for appropriate, inclusive, and diverse representation. A manuscript is typically reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, and where necessary editors should seek additional opinions. For authors’ recommended reviewers, editors should carefully verify and avoid those who have interests with the authors (reviewers and authors should not be close colleagues, family members, belong to the same research project or otherwise work closely together); for authors’ opposed reviewers, editors should respect the authors’ choice as much as possible when there are sufficient reasons.
3. Guarantee the confidentiality of the manuscript The editors and any editorial staff should guarantee the confidentiality of the unpublished papers and the information of reviewers, and should not disclose any information about a manuscript to anyone other than the authors, reviewers and potential reviewers, and editorial board members, as appropriate.
4. Handle complaints and appeals appropriately The editorial department is responsible for verifying and reviewing all appeals and complaints from authors and readers, and providing timely responses. Once there is an academic ethical appeal, editors shall take effective measures. If necessary, corrections, clarifications, withdrawals or apologies should be released in a timely manner. Editors have the obligation to hold authors and reviewers accountable for misconduct.
Publication ethics for reviewers
1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions The peer review process is the backbone of academic publishing. Reviewers contribute to the editorial decision-making process regarding submitted manuscripts. Reviewers should assist the authors in refining their manuscripts through editorial communications. Reviewers should be independent of the authors or editors of the journal.
2. Promptness A reviewer who considers her/himself unqualified to review the suggested research output or finds out that the manuscripts cannot be reviewed promptly should notify the Editor-in-Chief and withdraw from the review process. Reviewers should be independent of the author or editor of the journal and should provide formative feedback about the clarity, validity, and sound methodology of the material under assessment. Reviewers should recognize that reviewing is a reciprocal exercise and thus aim to carry out the task in a timely manner.
3. Confidentiality As the review process is based on trust, it is important that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica uses a single-blind peer review process. Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document and must be treated as privileged information. This applies also to the invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
4. Acknowledgement of Sources Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers must inform the Editor-in-Chief about any substantial similarity or overlap between a submitted manuscript and any other published work which they are personally acquainted. Reviewers are also expected to identify relevant published work not cited by the authors.
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest Reviewers must keep confidential and must not use for personal benefit any information or ideas obtained during the peer review of a submitted manuscript. Reviewers should reject to consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other links which they may have with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated to the research work.