Publication Ethics Guideline for Clean Coal Technology

 

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. Clean Coal Technology has been adhering to the concept using a high-standard publication ethics. Clean Coal Technology 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 Clean Coal Technology 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 Clean Coal Technology, 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 Clean Coal Technology.
The cited references in a manuscript should have explicit marks of citation source, and be listed according to the style of Clean Coal Technology. Authors should ensure the institutes or persons that provided founding or assistance for the work were listed in the acknowledgments. Authors should respect the review or revision comments by peer reviewers or editors. The authors should agree to transfer exclusive license and copyrights to Clean Coal Technology.

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Authors have the obligation to ensure the originality of a submitted work and not be published else.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.
(2) Plagiarism:
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 Clean Coal Technology.
(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. 
(4) Originality 
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.
(5) Falsification
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.

 

In order to strengthen the construction of academic ethics standards for scientific journals, promote scientific research integrity, protect the rights and interests of readers and authors, and maintain the quality and reputation of this journal, “Clean Coal Technology” will strictly test all submitted papers in accordance with the editorial publishing process. The specific testing and identification process and treatment methods are as follows:

1. the procedure for the identification of academic misconduct

This journal adopts CNKI 'Science and Technology Periodical Academic Misconduct Document Detection System' and related search engine system to detect the papers, and actively pays attention to the clues provided in the peer review, and compares the 'Chinese Academic Literature Network Publishing Library' with the full text. The database examines whether the paper has plagiarism and plagiarism, forgery, falsification, improper signature, and multiple scholarships in various aspects of editing and publishing. The editorial department will invite the experts or editorial committees of relevant research fields to examine and identify the papers with high check-up rate through systematic examination in a prudent manner.

2. the scope of the paper to be tested

(1) All submitted papers, ready to be hired and accepted papers;

(2) Papers reported to be suspected of academic misconduct.

3. the standard of identification of academic misconduct

The paper was checked and re-examined by CNKI “Science and Technology Journal Academic Misconduct Document Detection System”. If the check rate is 15% or more, the editorial department will submit the paper and the comparative paper to the reviewer or the editorial committee to confirm the nature and form of the paper, and make the identification and treatment of the paper and the comparison paper.

The criteria for identifying academic misconduct are as follows:

(1) The content of the thesis is intact or the original results are copied intact;

(2) In the content of the thesis, change the type of the results of others and treat the results of others as the results of their own independent completion; or do not change the type of results but use the copyrighted components of the results and change the specific manifestations of the results, and Treat the results of others as the results of their own independent completion;

(3) Citing other people's protected opinions, plans, materials, data, etc., without specifying or listing the corresponding references;

(4) Same as the main content of the paper that the author or others have published or published electronically on the Internet, only to make some formal changes, and the substantive research is insufficient;

(5) Fabricating or tampering with research results, survey data, experimental data or literature materials in the paper;

(6) Submit the same article to both the journal and other publications;

(7) The author's signature and ranking, the author unit marked the existence of disputes.

4.  the treatment of academic papers identified as academic misconduct

(1) This journal will treat the papers that are ultimately identified as academic misconduct in a prudent manner, notify the author in a timely manner, and allow the author to explain and defend the issue before making a decision.

(2) If the paper has not been accepted, the editorial department will immediately terminate the processing process, make the rejection and give the author a critical education.

(3) If the paper is in the process of being hired but not officially published, the editorial department will make the rejection and cancel the qualification of the applicant, and at the same time give the author an archive and warning.

(4) If the paper has been officially published, the editorial department will officially revoke the announcement of the paper on the paper version, the website of the journal, and notify the cooperation database to delete the online version and terminate the dissemination of the paper; In this event, the author's unit is notified. The author is required to refund the manuscript fee for this paper, and publicly apologize to the journal, the infringer or the unit, and all readers for the infringement and adverse effects of the paper on the paper version, and assume corresponding responsibilities. The editorial department reserves the right to continue to recover compensation if it causes reputation or other losses to the journal.

(5) The papers written by the authors of the papers with the plagiarism of plagiarism and plagiarism, which are the first author or the author of the communication, will not be accepted in the third year.

5.  the author's objection processing

If the author of the paper disagrees with the identification and processing results of this journal, he may submit a written application review to the journal within 10 working days from the date of receipt of the notice (the journal will not be accepted after the deadline), and the editorial department is responsible for inviting experts to the paper will be reviewed, the final processing opinion will be made, and the author of the review will be notified within 30 working days.

 

As a service to our readers, papers published in our journal are free to be downloaded from online publication. You only need to click the “PDF” or "HTLM" under the title of each article.