1) Submissions must be original works, the contributions and its key elements should never been published before; No plagiarism, the bibliography information should be clearly annotated in the references; The data should be true, non-deceptive, and no fudging or plagiarism as well as other academic misconduct action.
2) All authors should be contributors to the work; There’s no dispute in the author order, the correspondence author should ensure that publication of the paper be authorized by the other authors; Alteration of the author order before publication should be consented by all authors to ensure the accuracy of all authors’ rights.
3) Funds information should be indicated in the manuscript; Support or aid for the publication of the work by persons having no author qualifications should be clearly stated in the acknowledgement.
4) The advice and information in CJSS is believed to be true and accurate at the date of its publication, neither the authors, the editors, nor the publishers can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made.
1) Comments should be objective and fair, definitive opinions on the academic value and whether the paper can meet the publication standards should be given, avoiding ambiguous comments.
2) Respect for diverse academic views, do not make rude, aggressive comments; Serious scientific misconduct should be feedback to the editorial office faithfully.
3) If the work or method is not so familiar to make a peer review, please inform the editorial office to make adjustment; For paper with conflicts in interests or having shared benefits, avoidance of peer review is required.
4) When a peer review invitation is accepted, the review comments should be presented within the planning time; hinders or delays for completion of review should be notified to the editorial office in time.
1) Be responsible to ensure the justice of review and reduce bias; Make efforts to ensure the timely process for contribution by arranging peer review and publication promptly, especially for papers with important findings.
2) Ensure the journal publication on time with schedule; Report novel and authentic researches, give priority to publication of frontier and hot issues; Academic misconducts, such as plagiarism, duplication, are definitely rejected.
3) A suitable and competent reviewers’ database should be established and maintained; Quality of reviewing tasks by reviews/editorial board members should be objectively recorded and evaluated.
4) Feedback the experts’ review comments to the author timely; Coordinate academic discussions and communications between the author and reviewer; Offensive or defamatory comments are rejected; The author’s appeal on the final decision is accepted.