Ethical Guidelines to Publication in Journal of Electrochemistry
Journal of Electrochemistry is committed to meeting and upholding standard ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. Pursuing truth and promoting academic exchanges, Journal of Electrochemistry reports original experimental technological achievements and avoids publishing dishonest paper. We follow the requirements and guidelines given by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) closely and strictly in order to meet these standards. Below is a summary of what we expect from our reviewers, editors and authors.
Journal of Electrochemistry asks our reviewers, editors, and authors to understand ethical issues in publishing and follow the guidelines outlined below.
Journal of Electrochemistry is an open access journal, meaning that it is fully open access and has no remuneration for authors whose articles are accepted in the journal. We allows all readers around the world to have free access to articles published in Journal of Electrochemistry.
1. Ethical expectations
Reviewers play a critical role in the evaluation of research presented in a manuscript and should consider participating in the peer review process to be part of their professional responsibilities. The quality of work published in a field is best managed if qualified professionals regularly participate in the peer review process. Reviewers must be able to provide fair and constructive review while maintaining the confidentiality of the review process. Below are some issues that reviewers should know:
(1) Blind refereeing processes are conducted.
(2) Reviewers are expected to contribute to the decision-making process (whether to accept or decline an article).
(3) Reviewers must review each manuscript fairly and objectively, and should give the final review results based on the value and quality of the manuscript, regardless of the author's race, religion, nationality, gender, seniority, or institutional background.
(4) When the reviewers receive the review invitation, they must clarify any potential conflicts of interest with the manuscript, including any relationship with the author, to ensure that there is no prejudice against the manuscript. If a reviewer is uncertain whether a competing or conflicting interest exists, the reviewer should contact editorial office immediately.
(5) Reviewers should make every reasonable effort to review the manuscript. Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript with no intention of submitting a review. It is important that reviewers submit the review in accordance with the timeline communicated at the time the invitation is accepted. If the review is not possible or the review comments cannot be submitted on time, the editor should be notified in time.
(6) Reviewers should give an objective, fair, and effective review opinion based on the value, quality, and journal conditions of the manuscript to help the editor make the final decision and help the author improve the content of the manuscript.
(7) Reviewers should report to the editorial office in time the misconceptions, erroneous views, logical fallacies, ungrounded conclusions, suspected plagiarism, suspected data counterfeiting, etc. No personal criticism of the author should appear in the review comments.
(8) Reviewers should comply with the following confidentiality requirements:
Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not retain and/or copy the manuscripts or discuss them with others.
Reviewers are not allowed to use the unpublished work described in the manuscript in their own work.
Reviewers are not allowed to retain a copy of the manuscript after the peer review process is complete.
Reviewers are not allowed to disclose publicly which specific manuscripts they have reviewed.
Reviewers are not allowed to disclose publicly any details regarding the manuscripts reviewed.
Reviewers are not allowed to disclose their identity to the authors.
Reviewers may request to engage other colleagues in the review after receiving approval of editor. Reviewers are not allowed to elicit assistance from colleagues during the review without obtaining the permission of the editor.
Reviewers may publicly disclose that they have served as a peer reviewer for Journal of Electrochemistry.
As a mediator in the peer-review and publication process, editors of Journal of Electrochemistry Chemistry have responsibilities and duties that they are expected to carry out in order for the review process to proceed smoothly and fairly. Below are some responsibilities and expectations we ask of our editors:
(1) Editors are liable for the quality of the journal, and keep upgrading it to meet the needs of both readers and authors.
(2) Editors should handle submissions in a balanced, objective and fair way, without having to consider the author's race, religion, nationality, gender, seniority, or institutional background, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit.
(3) Editors must be aware of any potential conflicts of interest with the manuscript, including any relationship with the authors, to ensure that there is no prejudice against the manuscript.
(4) When the editors believe that the article is not suitable for the reporting direction of the journal, it should directly reject the manuscript without peer review.
(5) Editors should ensure that each article is peer-reviewed by at least two experts in the field.
(6) Editors must keep the peer review process confidential and information about the article should not be shared with anyone outside the peer review process.
(7) Editors must not use unpublished material from the reviewed manuscripts in their own research without the authors’ express written consent.
(8) Editors may not handle the peer review of self-authored work and must assign their manuscript to another editor.
(9) Whenever the editors receive a complaint about the publication's ethical issues, he should immediately take response measures to actively investigate, obtain evidence, and implement.
(10) For the main content or conclusion of the published article, if there is solid evidence to prove that there is a problem, the editor needs to carry out appropriate errata work.
(11) Editors are guided by COPE’s guidelines for retracting articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concerns, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in our journal.
(12) Editors must work hard to deal with articles in an efficient and timely manner.
The author is primarily responsible for good ethical practices during manuscript publication.In order to serious academic style, prevent academic misconduct, and effectively improve the academic quality of the journal, authors are requested to strictly abide by the publishing ethics:
(1) Authors should review the Guide for Authors to become familiar with journal requirements.
(2) Authors must submit their manuscript to only one journal at a time. Different manuscripts describing the same work should not be submitted to multiple journals at the same time. If a manuscript is an extension of earlier work, the original article must be cited.
(3) The content of the article should be original by the author, and the data should be authentic and reliable. Plagiarism, forgery, or tampering with data (including images) are not allowed. Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given (this includes material that is closely copied, summarized and/or paraphrased), quotation marks are used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions are secured for material that is copyrighted.
Important note: the journal may use software to screen for plagiarism.
(4) Upon request, authors should be prepared to submit relevant documentation or data in order to verify the validity of the results. The author should keep all the original data of the article, if necessary, for reference.
(5) Authors must avoid defamatory statements that harm anyone.
(6) All conflicts of interest must be disclosed in a conflict of interest statement.
(7) All potential safety concerns and potential hazards present in carrying out the work should be addressed. If the research is involving human subjects or some animal experiments, the authors need to provide the documents concerning ethical assessment for the research, and the informed consent of patient.
(8) The author must indicate the source of all research funding for the article.
(9) Authors should avoid suggesting reviewers with which they have a personal or professional relationship and who cannot provide an unbiased review of the manuscript.
(10) All authors listed on the manuscript should have made significant scientific contributions to the research described in the manuscript.
(11) The author and institute/organization of the article must be true, and improper attribution is not allowed, such as exclude those who have made a substantial contribution to the research involved in the paper from the author list, include those who have not made a substantial contribution to the research involved in the paper as the author List, arbitrarily add or delete the author’s name and unit in the paper after submission, and falsely mark the author’s information; author ranking does not correctly reflect the actual contribution.
(12) Consent to submit has been received explicitly from all co-authors, as well as from the responsible authorities - tacitly or explicitly - at the institute/organization where the work has been carried out, before the work is submitted.
(13) Authors whose names appear on the submission have contributed sufficiently to the scientific work and therefore share collective responsibility and accountability for the results.
(14) Authors are encouraged to also participate in the peer review process for Journal of Electrochemistry.
(15) The editorial board and reviewers will conduct investigation and evidence collection if they find publication ethical harm and academic misconduct during and after the review of the manuscript. Once confirmed, the article will be withdrawn.
(16) Further information on ethical guidelines for authors can be found on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website.
2. Handling of Academic Misconducts
The editorial board will send the manuscript back to the author once validated evidence is found indicating that it involves a certain kind of academic misconduct and inform the author, or the research team or institution he/she is affiliated to according to nature of the misconduct. In case academic misconduct is found with an already published paper in the journal, the editorial board will publish a statement in the journal or its website, announcing repeal of the paper involved and delete all the data related to the paper from all the related databases, so as to terminate the dissemination of the paper.