Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Plateau Meteorologyfollows the accepted ethics of publishing. Adopt double-blind review system to strictly control the quality of articles, and prevent plagiarism, multiple submissions of one manuscript, writing papers, third-party submissions, unreasonable signatures and other academic misconducts.
Plateau Meteorology (including print and electronic versions, the same below) and all content published on this website, including articles, pictures, photos, charts, layouts, column names, catalogues, etc., its copyright, trademark rights, The publishing copyright and other related rights belong to the copyright owner or the corresponding right owner, and are protected by Chinese laws and international conventions that China has joined.
(1) Submit manuscripts for review in a timely manner under the premise of double-blind review.
(2) Feedback expert review opinions to authors in a timely manner; support academic discussions-coordinate communication between authors and reviewers; under the double-blind review principle, the manuscript and reviewer information are obliged to keep confidential; Comments that are offensive or defamatory will not be adopted.
(3) According to the importance, originality, clarity, and relevance of the paper, the editorial board and editor have the power to reject and accept the paper; allow the author to appeal the review decision.
Responsibilities of reviewers
(1) The evaluation of papers should be objective and fair, give clear opinions on the academic level of the paper and whether it meets the public publication standards, and avoid perfunctory or ambiguous review opinions.
(2) Respect the existence of different academic viewpoints, and do not publish rude, derogatory or unobjective comments; if serious academic misconduct is found in the paper, it should be truthfully reported to the editorial department.
(3) If you are not familiar with the object of review or the relevant research direction, you should truthfully inform the editorial department; for papers that have conflicts of interest or mutual benefits that hinder objective evaluation, you can avoid reviewing the manuscript.
(4) If you are invited to review a paper, it should be completed within the specified time, and the editorial department should be notified in time due to delays caused by objective factors.
(1) The author's submission must be an original work, the submission and its key content have never been published, and multiple publications are prohibited; no plagiarism, and the cited opinions should clearly indicate the reference information; the data in the text is true and reliable, non-deceptive, and strictly prohibited Academic misconduct such as forgery, tampering or plagiarism.
(2) It is not allowed to violate the signature rules of the paper. All the signed authors of the paper should review and agree to publish the paper in advance, and have the responsibility of informed consent to the content of the paper; the drafter of the paper must seek the signed author’s opinions on the full text of the paper in advance and obtain his signed consent. Every author who signs the paper must have a substantive academic contribution to the paper, and resolutely resists no substantive academic contributors to sign the paper.
(3) "Third parties" are not allowed to write papers on their behalf. Technologists should complete the thesis writing by themselves, and resolutely resist "third parties" providing thesis writing services. "Third parties" are not allowed to submit papers on their behalf. Sci-tech workers should learn and master the submission procedures of academic journals, complete the whole process of submitting papers and responding to review comments in person, and resolutely resist "third parties" providing paper submission services. No "third party" is allowed to modify the content of the paper. The author of the paper entrusts a "third party" to carry out the language editing of the paper, which should be based on the original manuscript completed by the author, and is limited to the improvement of language expression, and resolutely resist modifying the substantive content of the paper in the name of language editing.
(4) The paper or research funding information should be stated in the manuscript; other sources that provide support or assistance for the publication of the paper or those who do not have the qualification to sign should clearly state in the acknowledgment. It is not allowed to provide false peer reviewer information. If science and technology workers need to recommend peer reviewers to publish papers in academic journals, they should ensure that the information provided by the reviewer's name, contact information and other information is true and reliable, and resolutely resist any falsification in the peer review process.
Retraction and correction
(1) Editors should consider retracting the manuscript in the following cases: there is clear evidence that the research results are unreliable due to improper behavior (such as data falsification) or honest errors (such as misjudgment or experimental error); the research results have been previously published In other places without proper cross-references, permissions, or justifications (ie duplicate publication); constitute plagiarism; report unethical research.
(2) The retraction notice should be linked to the retracted manuscript as much as possible (ie all electronic versions); clearly identify the retracted article (for example, include the title and author in the title of the retracted manuscript); publish in time to minimize misleading publication The harmful effects of materials.
(3) Editors should consider issuing corrections in the following cases: a small part of reliable publications proves to be misleading (especially because of honest errors); the list of authors/contributors is incorrect (ie, competent authors are omitted or not Those who meet the copyright conditions are listed). All submitted manuscripts will be screened by using AMLC system powered by CNKI, text copy ratio should be smaller than 10%.
(1) The editor should ensure the fairness of the initial review process of the manuscript, reasonably grasp the position of the journal's publication, and reasonably select the manuscript;
(2) Ensure timely publication; the report content is novel, scientific and reliable, and the publication of the frontier and hot research results of the subject is given priority;
(3) Do a good job in the detection of academic misconduct in the included manuscripts. Eliminate the publication of academic misconduct such as false, plagiarism, duplicate publication, third-party submission of manuscripts, and unreasonable signatures of manuscripts.
(4) Efforts should be made to ensure that the received manuscripts are arranged for peer review and publication in a timely manner, and the timeliness of publication should be ensured for papers reported on important findings.
(5) Establish and maintain the editorial board database, and the editor shall assume the responsibility of assisting and supervising the members of the editorial board.
(6) Feedback expert review opinions to authors in a timely manner; support academic discussions and coordinate exchanges between authors and reviewers; under the review principle of "blind review", the reviewer is obliged to keep the reviewer's information confidential; for rudeness or Defamatory reviews will not be adopted.
(Updated June 2022)
Copyright © 2018 Plateau Meteorology
- Academic publishing specification—General
- Academic publishing specification—Fixed-layout for book
- Academic publishing specification—Notes
- Basic rules of the Chinese phonetic alphabet orthography
- Academic publishing specification—Translations
- General rules for punctuation
- Rules for bibliographic references and citations to information resources
- SI units and recommendations for the use of their multiples and of certain other units
- Academic publishing specification—Terms in sciences and technologies
QQ Group Chat