- Share:
"China Mine Engineering" adheres to widely recognized publishing ethics, continuously strengthens industry self-discipline, promotes academic integrity, and adopts a blind review system to strictly control the quality and content of articles, eliminating academic misconduct such as plagiarism, improper authorship, multiple submission of the same manuscript, and ghostwriting. In accordance with copyright law, domestic and international publishing ethics, and relevant provisions such as CY/T 174—2019 "Academic Publishing Standards - Definition of Academic Misconduct in Journals", this journal has established its own publishing ethics policies and systems to provide references for authors, academic groups, editors, research funders, and readers.
If a submitted paper is confirmed to violate academic ethics, it will not be accepted. Furthermore, for papers that have been accepted and published, if they are later confirmed to violate academic ethics, the journal editorial department reserves the right to retract the paper.
1. Author's publication ethics
1) The author should ensure that the paper does not involve national secrets such as politics, military affairs, science and technology, or any sensitive issues that are not suitable for public release. It should not involve any infringement issues related to intellectual property rights, nor should it involve language or experiments that harm animals, humans, or violate human ethics and morality.
2) Authors are not allowed to have their papers ghostwritten by third parties; they are not permitted to have their papers submitted by third parties; and they are prohibited from providing false information about peer reviewers.
3) The signing author must make substantial academic contributions to the paper, and resolutely resist the signing of papers by those without substantial academic contributions. It should be ensured that the signing and ranking of all authors/units are correct and undisputed. Once submitted, it is assumed that all signing authors have authorized and agreed.
4) Authors should ensure that their papers represent original research findings (excluding reviews) and have not been publicly published either domestically or internationally. The research findings and data presented in the paper must be authentic and reliable, without any issues such as fabrication, tampering, plagiarism, multiple submission, or duplicate publication. The paper should provide objective evaluations of the research findings of others and accurately cite them within the text.
5) Authors should provide the editorial department of this journal with a complete copyright transfer agreement for their papers, ensuring that they will not submit their papers to other journals before receiving a rejection notice from the editorial department.
6) When submitting a manuscript to a journal, authors should disclose all potential financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that may be relevant to the research outcomes and the writing of the paper.
II. Publication ethics of review experts
1) Review experts should adhere to the principles of fairness, impartiality, confidentiality, and timeliness, ensure scientific and accurate review of manuscripts, and be able to make objective and fair evaluations. They should strictly keep confidential the reviewed content, respect the research achievements of authors, and avoid reviewing manuscripts with potential conflicts of interest.
2) When receiving the review invitation, the reviewer should assess whether their professional knowledge and research direction align with the paper being reviewed. If there is a mismatch or if they are unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe, they should promptly inform the editorial department.
3) Utilize one's professional knowledge and abilities to review the manuscript for its innovativeness, scientificity, and practicality; provide impartial evaluations on whether the research methods are appropriate, the scientific research design is reasonable, the results and conclusions are accurate, and whether there are any potential breaches of confidentiality, in order to assist the editor in deciding whether to accept or reject the manuscript; offer detailed modification suggestions for issues present in the article, to help the author improve the quality of the paper.
4) Reviewers should have no vested interest relationship with the authors and funders of the papers, and should recuse themselves from reviewing papers where there is a conflict of interest.
5) Reviewers should promptly provide suggestions for rejection, revision, or revision and re-review of the paper, and offer detailed modification suggestions for the existing problems in the paper, in order to help the author accurately understand their paper and assist the editorial department in making correct judgments on the quality of the paper.
6) Reviewers should keep confidential the content of the papers they review, author information, and related content. They must not use or share the content of the reviewed papers for purposes unrelated to the review process without authorization. Without the permission of the journal editorial department, reviewers must not transfer the papers to others (colleagues, students, etc.) for review.
7) If the reviewer finds or suspects any academic misconduct such as duplicate publication, plagiarism, tampering, or forgery in the paper during the review process, they should promptly inform the editorial department and provide relevant evidence.
III. Publishing ethics of editors
1) Strictly adhere to relevant national laws and regulations, and abide by academic publishing ethics and norms.
2) Each submitted manuscript should be processed in a timely, fair, and impartial manner. The decision to accept or reject a paper should be based solely on its innovation, scientificity, practicality, and other aspects, as well as the content of the paper itself and its alignment with the journal's scope of acceptance;
3) Respect the research achievements of authors and the opinions of reviewers, and refrain from being influenced by interests to interfere with the peer review process of reviewers, ensuring that reviewers provide independent review recommendations.
4) Keep confidential the information of authors and reviewers, as well as the content of unpublished articles, and avoid favoritism in manuscript review.
5) Editors should strive to assist authors in enhancing the academic quality of their papers, refining their language expression, standardizing their style and format, and increasing the value of references and citations.
6) Editors should ensure that the edited manuscripts are published on time with high quality, thereby ensuring the development of the journal.
7) Put an end to all commercial demands and exchange of interests that undermine academic ethics.
8) Editors have the obligation to investigate and communicate academic misconduct. In the event of an academic ethics complaint regarding submitted papers or published articles, editors must take effective measures to respond. Editors are obligated to hold authors and reviewers accountable for any misconduct.
9) Encourage academic debate, and have the obligation to respond to authors' differing views on the reviewers' comments.
10) Editors have the responsibility to avoid academic misconduct such as multiple submission and duplicate publication, and should conduct duplicate checking and review for both initial submissions and papers that are about to be published.
11) Editors have the obligation to remind authors of potential copyright and intellectual property issues that may arise after changing the authorship, affiliation, and their order.
12) Editors should ensure the fairness and reasonableness of paper reviews. In the event of conflicts of interest or collaborative relationships arising from competition or cooperation between authors, institutions, or enterprises related to the article, editors must propose the replacement of reviewers, and the chief editor or other editorial board members shall be responsible for the review of the paper.
II. Handling of academic misconduct
This journal defines academic misconduct based on the latest national standard "Academic Publishing Standards - Definition of Academic Misconduct in Journals (CY/T174—2019)", which includes plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, improper authorship, multiple submission, duplicate publication, and violation of research ethics. For papers with academic misconduct, this journal will take serious measures, such as retracting the paper, pursuing author responsibilities, and purifying the academic environment.
III. Grievance mechanism
Only when the author has obtained sufficient information or evidence (such as providing additional factual information, correcting information, attaching supplementary materials, or lodging complaints regarding conflicts of interest and unfair peer review), will this journal allow the author to lodge a complaint and handle it based on the relevant information and evidence provided by the author.
