Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Plateau Meteorology adheres to internationally recognized publishing ethical standards, as outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In consideration of the specific circumstances of the journal, the following Publication Ethics is established, and all authors, editors, and reviewers are required to strictly adhere to it.

I. Author's Responsibilities

The responsibilities of authors include the following aspects:

1. Authorship Criteria: All authors must meet the journal's authorship standards, substantially contributing to the research or relevant work. This includes contributing to the conceptualization and design of the research, acquisition and analysis of research data, drafting or critically revising the article, among other significant contributions. Providing laboratory space or funding does not qualify for authorship.

2. Adherence to Authorship Norms: Authors must not violate authorship norms. All co-authors must review and agree to the publication of the manuscript, bearing the responsibility of being informed and providing consent. The drafter must seek opinions on the entire manuscript from co-authors beforehand and obtain their signed consent. Each author must make a substantial academic contribution and resist non-contributors from being listed as authors.

3. Authorship Modifications: Any changes to authorship, including additions or removals, should be made before manuscript acceptance. In case of modifications, the corresponding author must explain the reasons and submit confirmation from all authors agreeing to the changes, including added or removed authors.

4. Declaration of Contributions and Conflicts of Interest: Authors must declare their specific contributions to the research and disclose potential conflicts of interest by filling out and submitting the journal's "Authors' Declaration Form." When financial/personal/affiliation relationships might influence decisions, work, or the manuscript, authors should disclose potential conflicts. If products are mentioned in the manuscript, authors should disclose any conflicts with competing products.

5. Originality Assurance: Authors must ensure that the manuscript is an original work, free from plagiarism, data fabrication, multiple submissions, or duplicate publications, and does not contain confidential information. If the article includes the work of others, clear acknowledgment and permission from the original authors, in compliance with copyright laws, are required to avoid infringing on intellectual property.

6. Funding and Acknowledgments: Authors must specify funding or support for the research in the original manuscript. Other contributors or individuals without authorship qualifications who assisted in the article's preparation should be clearly acknowledged in the acknowledgments section.

7. Manuscript Preparation: Authors must independently write the manuscript, resisting the use of third-party services for manuscript drafting. If authors engage third parties for language polishing, it should be based on the original manuscript, limited to language improvements, and should avoid substantial content modifications in the name of language polishing. Authors should learn and master the academic journal submission process, personally completing the submission, and responding to the review process, avoiding using third-party manuscript submission services.

8. Peer Reviewer Recommendations: If authors recommend peer reviewers, they must ensure that any provided information, including the names and contact details of reviewers, is authentic, reliable, and refrain from any falsification in the peer review process.

II. Editor's Responsibilities

The responsibilities of editors (applicable to editorial board members) include the following:

1. Fairness in Initial Manuscript Review: Editors should ensure the fairness of the initial manuscript review process, selecting manuscripts based on scientific merit (scientific value, originality, clarity) and aligning with the journal's publication positioning. Consideration should not be given to the author's affiliation, nationality, race, gender, age, or other personal circumstances.

2. Academic Misconduct Detection: Editors must eliminate the publication of academically dishonest articles, including false information, plagiarism, duplicate publications, third-party manuscript submission or publication, and articles with unreasonable authorship. The editorial department uses the CNKI Academic Misconduct Literature Detection System or Wanfang Similarity Detection System to screen all submissions, with a text similarity rate not exceeding 10%. For manuscripts accused of academic misconduct, editors should conduct timely investigations and take appropriate actions.

3. Timely Manuscript Handling: Editors should promptly review and arrange peer reviews for manuscripts, ensuring timely peer review and publication for received manuscripts, particularly those reporting important discoveries.

4. Editors should refrain from adopting disrespectful or defamatory expert review comments.

5. Editors should promptly provide authors with feedback on expert review comments, supporting academic discussions, and facilitating communication between authors and reviewers. However, authors should be allowed to appeal editorial decisions.

6. Confidentiality in Peer Review: Editors must adhere to the double-blind review principle and maintain confidentiality of manuscript and reviewer information.

7. Handling Conflicts of Interest: Editors should promptly inform the editorial department of potential conflicts of interest, including but not limited to the following scenarios:

   1) If the editor is an author, the manuscript must be independently reviewed by another editor.

   2) If there is a relationship between the author and editor (such as colleagues, supervisor-student, collaborators, or competitors), the manuscript should be transferred to another editor.

   3) If the research topic is too closely related to the editor's own project, the manuscript should be handed over to another editor.

6. Careful Selection of Reviewers: Editors must carefully select peer reviewers to ensure the fairness of the review process:

   1) Caution should be exercised when using reviewers recommended by authors to avoid excessive affirmation (e.g., avoiding reviewers who are past mentors, students, or co-authors of the author).

   2) The identity of reviewers recommended by authors should be verified to ensure the fairness of the peer review process.

   3) If authors suggest avoiding specific reviewers, editors should attempt to avoid using those reviewers.

7. Participation in Building and Maintaining Editorial Board Database: Editors have an obligation to participate in establishing and maintaining the editorial board database, assisting and supervising editorial board members.

III. Reviewer's Responsibilities

Reviewers are responsible for assisting the editorial department in reviewing manuscripts and should be experts in the relevant field. The responsibilities of reviewers include:

1. Timely Review Completion: Reviewers should complete the review within the stipulated time. If objective factors prevent continued review or require more time, reviewers should promptly inform the editorial department.

2. Disclosure of Unfamiliarity: Reviewers should truthfully inform the editorial department if they are unfamiliar with the subject matter or research direction of the manuscript under review.

3. Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should prevent themselves from reviewing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest, cooperation, or any situation that impedes them to provide an objective evaluation. If reviewers discover serious academic misconduct in a manuscript, they should report it to the editorial department.

4. Objective and Respectful Reviews: Reviewers should be objective and fair, respecting diverse academic viewpoints and avoiding impolite, derogatory, or subjective comments. Clear opinions on the academic level and whether the manuscript meets the standards for public publication should be provided, avoiding perfunctory or ambiguous review comments.

5. Confidentiality of Manuscript and Review Process: Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscript content, including data, information, and arguments. Reviewer identity and details of the review process should not be disclosed to others. After completing the review, reviewers must not retain any form of the manuscript and must comply with data protection regulations.

6. Non-Unauthorized Use of Manuscript Information: Reviewers must not use confidential information, data, or results from manuscripts under review for their own research.