GNSS World of China

Publication Ethics Statement of GNSS World of China

  • Share:

This ethics statement is guided by COPE’s ethics standard. It is necessary that all parties involved in publishing process: the editors, the reviewers, the authors and other interest related parties should obey the following responsibilities and other related publication regulations of GNSS World of China.   

1. Editor Responsibility

1.1 The editor is responsible for deciding to accept, reject or improve the articles submitted to the journal. In making these decisions, the editors should be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and the comments of the peer-reviewers, as well as, by the legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

1.2 The editors should evaluate intellectual content of the manuscripts without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship of political philosophy of the authors.

1.3 Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated for its originality by using appropriate plagiarism check software. After passing the check, the manuscript is forwarded to reviewer for peer- review. The editor should summarize these comments after peer-reviewing.

1.4 The editor must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers and the publisher. Especially, the editor must not use the unpublished materials in their own research.

2. Reviewer Responsibility

2.1 The reviewer is responsible for advising whether the manuscript is accepted, giving review comments to the editor, and helping the author to improve it. The reviewer should respect different scientific opinions, and judge the manuscript objectively and fairly. They should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

2.2 The reviewers should inform the editors promptly if they find any academic misconduct like plagiarism or multiple, redundant or concurrent publication. They should also identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

2.3 Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the manuscript timely or unfamiliar with the research orientations should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. If there exists conflicts or interests resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships, the reviewer should refuse to review the manuscript.

2.4 Without the permission of the editor, the reviewers must not provide the manuscript to other professionals, or use the unpublished materials in their own research or in the research of their associates.

3. Author Responsibility

3.1 The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and all the key contents never published and/or duplicated published. Underlying data should be represented accurately and objectively. A paper should contain sufficient references for the quoted and cited contents. Any academic misconduct like data fraud, plagiarism or multiple, redundant or concurrent publication is forbidden.

3.2 Authorship of a manuscript should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant should be listed as authors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have no conflicts in the name list. To ensure the accuracy of the authorship, any changes to the author’s sequence should be consent in writing version for all author in the “application for changing authors”.

3.3 All finial support of the manuscript or the research should be clearly listed.  Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project and not defined as an author, they should be named in an acknowledgement section.

3.4 During the review and publication procedure, the author should disclose the conflict parties(if there is any) to avoid the potential unfair judgment.

3.5 All authors have the right to appeal for the rejection of their manuscript. Authors can appeal directly by contacting the editorial office, applying for a new peer-review for the scientific and publishing value of the manuscript. The editor-in-chief should decide the final result of the appeal.

4. Retractions and Corrections

4.1 Editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (i.e. data fabrication) or honest error (i.e. miscalculation or experimental error); the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication); it constitutes plagiarism; it reports unethical research.

4.2 Notices of retraction should be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (i.e. in all electronic versions); clearly identify the retracted article (i.e. by including the title and authors in the retraction heading); be published promptly to minimize harmful effects from misleading publications.

4.3 Editors should consider issuing a correction if a small portion of other reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error); the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).

  • Share: