Statement of Publication Ethics
Keeping the high ethic consciousness and publication ethics is crucial for every participator in processes of academic research, paper writing and publishing. Bulletin of Botanic Research (BBR) has been adhering to the concept using a high-standard publication ethics. BBR practices the high standard of publication ethics through transparent and standard service, and provides valid advices in case of the occurrence of an academic misconduct. Several important items of BBR publication ethics were listed for reference by authors. More detailed items about publication ethics can refer to the Ethics Standards released by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) through the official website (e.g., http://www.publicationethics.org/) Publication ethics for authors
The authors have the obligation to state the originality of their work (excluding review articles) submitted to BBR, without any falsification and plagiary content. The statements should mention the additional contents that a submission does not involve any state secret or infringement of intellectual property rights, and ensure that a submission is not being considered by else journal, parts of the submission have been never published in else journal or media by any other language. In addition, the author(s) should ensure not to submit the manuscript to else journal before receiving a rejection decision by BBR.
The cited references in a manuscript should have explicit marks of citation source, and be listed according to the style of BBR. Authors should ensure the institutes or persons that provided founding or assistance for the work were listed in the acknowledgements. Authors should respect the review or revision comments by peer reviewers or editors. The authors should agree to transfer exclusive license and copyrights to BBR. The following academic misconducts are strictly forbidden:
(1) Multiple submissions
Authors have the obligation to ensure the originality of a submitted work and not be published else. Intentionally duplicate publication is considered an academic misconduct that is severely contrary to publication ethics.
The most important principle about a submission is that a manuscript should be an original work and not published in any else journal. The author(s) should declare the facts at the step of submission if a manuscript has been published in some form (including the form published by another language) or a paper being similar in research content has been published or translated.
Plagiarism is a common misconduct contrary to publication ethics. It means that authors intentionally use another work but without permission by the originator, or did not mark the citation or expression in the acknowledgment. Plagiarism involves the forms of directly republishing or partially revising the existed work with signature, including data, words, sentence, paragraph, or some ideas and concepts. Any plagiarism form is strictly forbidden by BBR.
(3) Co-author authorship
Indicating authorship can ensure the contribution and responsibility of an author in a research work was identified. Intentionally distorting the correlation between researchers and research work belongs to a misconduct, which can damage the credibility of research results. All contents of a manuscript should be approved by each co-author before submission.
Authors should not re-submit the data that have been published else as an original document; but excluding the cases that authors made explanations or cited in a suitable way in the submission.
It means that some data or conclusions were not obtained from or based on experimental results by themselves, but obtained through falsification. Falsification is strictly forbidden for researchers in any case. Publication ethics for peer reviewers
The peer reviewers should abide by the principles of scientificity, accuracy, objectivity, and fairness for the assessment of each manuscript. In addition, peer reviewers should not disclose any content in a reviewed manuscript and respect author’s research achievements. A peer reviewer should not accept an invitation nor review a manuscript if there is a conflict of interest between a reviewer and any author.
(1) Peer reviewers make an over evaluation on the innovation, scientificity, and practicability of a manuscript, and special comments on experimental design, research methods, results and conclusions, and the confidentiality. An overall evaluation is a major base for editorial decision, and the special comments are beneficial to the improvement in paper quality.
(2) A peer review should only involve academic assessment but not have prejudice or discrimination against the authors. An editorial decision on a manuscript should be not made on a basis of the author property (including race, sexuality, religion, position, seniority, and authority). In an evaluation report, the peer reviewer should make a clear decision or recommendation on a manuscript, being accompanied with an adequately scientific evidence and clear statements about existed problems or advices.
(3) Peer reviewers should review manuscript and fill review sheet on time, then submit a peer review to the editorial office in time. If a peer review could not be completed in the given period, a reviewer should explain or return a manuscript to the editorial office in time.
(4) Peer reviewers should abide by the review principle of the confidentiality to assigned review work, including the cases that do not transfer to or discuss with the other person(s) some content of or a full text, not use or publish partial data, views, or conclusions existed in a reviewed manuscript. Any form of use mentioned the above should be in a precondition that have obtained author’s agreement.
(5) Using the statement or evidence that produced from previous studies should mark the citation source in the text and the corresponding bibliographic reference. Peer reviewers should comment on the citations that should be but not cited in the manuscript. At the same time, should identify the similarity or repeatability between the reviewed manuscript and published work.
(6) All information about peer review should be confidential and not used for personal purpose. Peer reviewers should reject an invitation or review a manuscript that has the conflict of interest with authors, or author’s institution. Publication ethics for editors
Editors should abide by publication-related state laws and regulations as well as ethics. Major principles for an editor are to keep the time-effectiveness and fairness in handling each manuscript, to respect author’s research work and peer reviewer’s comments. In addition, an editor should abide by the confidential principle for all information of authors and peer reviewers. Editors should not handle a manuscript that have the potential conflict of interest with authors.
(1) Editors are responsible for the whole process, including how to promote the development of the journal and publication quality and efficiency. Editors should abide by the related policies (formulated by the editorial board meeting) and the state laws and regulations on libel, tort, and plagiarism for handling manuscripts.
(2) Have the obligation to keep the authenticity of peer review records, and the documents related to peer review and revision records. Editors and editorial officers could not leak any information about a manuscript to others except some necessary information supplied for corresponding authors, peer reviewers, and editorial board members
(3) Abide by the principle of fairness in manuscript selection, accept or reject a manuscript on the basis of the originality, importance, and clarity as well as the consistency with journal objective and scope.
(4) For a manuscript that large revisions occur in the editing step, editors should inform the facts and obtain an agreement on all the revisions by the authors.
(5) Any commercial purpose or exchange of interests beyond academic ethics have to be forbidden.
(6) Have the responsibility to investigate any academic misconduct, to in-timely and efficiently handle the related appeals when any form of misconduct occurs in a submitted manuscript or published paper. Editors should release correction, clarification, retraction, or apologizes in time. In addition, editors have the supervising accountability to authors and peer reviewers with academic misconducts.
(7) Ensure all information related to the authors and a reviewed manuscript not be used for a person purpose (the editor or his/her relationships). Editors should abide by the principle of confidentiality, not disclosing the identities of a reviewer and an editorial officer during blinding peer review.
(8) In view of encouraging diverse academic contentions, editors are obligation to allow possible counterargument raised by the authors against peer reviewer’s comments.
(9) Ensure the fairness and reasonability for each manuscript in the peer review process. Editors should suggest to re-assign peer reviewers or directly submit a manuscript to Editor-in-Chief or an editorial board member for editorial evaluation in some exceptional cases of the conflict of interest (such as competition or cooperation) between pre-assigned reviewers and the authors or their affiliations.