Chinese Journal of Space Science (CJSS) is an authoritative scholarly journal in the field of space science under the auspices of sponsored by the National Space Science Center (Formerly known as Center for Space Science and Applied Research), Chinese Academy of Sciences and Chinese Society of Space Research.
CJSS aims to report new research results achieved in the field of space sciences. Both theoretical and applied researches, either on natural processes of the space itself, or any other phenomena that occurred in this special environment are included.
Publication of an article in an academic peer-reviewed journal serves several functions, one of which is to validate and preserve the “minutes” of research. It is therefore of immense importance that these “minutes” are accurate and trustworthy. The act of publishing involves many parties, each of which plays an important role in achieving these aims. It therefore follows that the author, the journal editor, the peer-reviewer, the publisher and the owner of Society-owned journals have responsibilities to meet expected ethical standards at all stages in their involvement from submission to publication of an article.
CJSS is committed to meeting and upholding standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. We follow closely the industry associations, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), that set standards and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements. Below is a summary of our key expectations of editors, peer-reviewers and authors.
1. ETHICAL EXPECTATIONS
1.1 Editors’ responsibilities
To act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out their expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.
To handle submissions for sponsored supplements or special issues in the same way as other submissions, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without commercial influence.
To adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflicting nature, in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Society where appropriate. To give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.
1.2 Reviewers’ responsibilities
To contribute to the decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of the published paper by reviewing the manuscript objectively, and in a timely manner
To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. To not retain or copy the manuscript.
To alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.
To be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the editor to these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript.
1.3 Authors’ responsibilities
CJSS is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record, and will follow the COPE guidelines on how to deal with potential acts of misconduct.
Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal and ultimately the entire scientific endeavor. Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation can be achieved by the following rules of good scientific practice.
(i) The manuscript has not been submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration.
(ii) The manuscript has not been published previously (partly or in full), unless the new work concerns an expansion of previous work (please provide transparency on the re-use of material to avoid the hint of text-recycling (“self-plagiarism”).
(iii) A single study is not split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time (e.g. “salami-publishing”).
(iv) No data have been fabricated or manipulated (including images) to support your conclusions.
(v) No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the authors’ own (“plagiarism”). Proper acknowledgments to other works must be given, and this includes material that is closely copied (near verbatim), summarized and/or paraphrased. Quotation marks are used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions are secured for material that is copyrighted.
(vi) Important note: the journal may use software to screen for plagiarism.
(vii) Consent to submit has been received from all co-authors and responsible authorities at the institute/organization where the work has been carried out before the work is submitted.
(viii) Authors whose names appear on the submission have contributed sufficiently to the scientific work and therefore share collective responsibility and accountability for the results.
Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work, and every author has responsibility for the data and argument mentioned in the paper. The corresponding author must have obtained permission from all authors for the submission of each version of the paper and for any change in authorship.
In addition: changes of authorship or in the order of authors are not accepted after acceptance of a manuscript; requests to add or delete authors at the revision stage or after publication is a serious matter, and may be considered only after receipt of written approval from all authors and a detailed explanation about the role/deletion of the new/deleted author. The decision on accepting the change rests with the editorial department of the journal, and authors should be prepared to send relevant documentation or data in order to verify the validity of the results. This could be in the form of raw data, samples, records, etc.
1.5 Disclosure of potential conflict of interests
Authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could influence or bias the work. Although an author may not feel there are conflicts, disclosure of relationships and interests affords a more transparent process, leading to an accurate and objective assessment of the work. Awareness of real or perceived conflicts of interest is a perspective to which the readers are entitled, and is not meant to imply that a financial relationship with an organization that sponsored the research or compensation for consultancy work is inappropriate. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that are directly or indirectly related to the research may include but are not limited to the following:
(i) Research grants from funding agencies (please give the research funder and the grant number);
(ii) Honoraria for speaking at symposia;
(iii) Financial support for attending symposia;
(iv) Financial support for educational programs;
(v) Employment or consultation;
(vi) Support from a project sponsor;
(vii) Position on advisory board or board of directors or other types of management relationships;
(viii) Multiple affiliations;
(ix) Financial relationships, for example, equity ownership or investment interest;
(x) Intellectual property rights (e.g. patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights);
(xi) Holdings of spouse and/or children that may have a financial interest in the work.
In addition, interests that go beyond financial interests and compensation (non-financial interests) that may be important to readers should be disclosed. These may include but are not limited to personal relationships or competing interests directly or indirectly tied to this research, professional interests or personal beliefs that may influence your research.
The corresponding author will include a summary statement in the text of the manuscript in a separate section before the reference list. See below examples of disclosures.
Funding: This study was funded by X (grant number X).
Conflict of Interest: Author A has received research grants from Company A. Author B has received a speaker honorarium from Company X and owns stock in Company Y. Author C is a member of committee Z.
If no conflict exists, the authors should state as follows.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
1.6 Informed consent
All individuals have individual rights that are not to be infringed. Individual participants in studies have the right to decide what happens to the (identifiable) personal data gathered and what they have said e.g. during a study or an interview as well as to any photograph that was taken. Hence it is important that all participants gave their informed consent in writing prior to inclusion in the study. Identifying details (names, dates of birth, identity numbers and other information) of the participants that were studied should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and genetic profiles unless the information is essential for scientific purposes, and the participant (or parent or guardian if the participant is incapable) has given written informed consent for publication.
Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve in some cases, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of participants is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic profiles, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning. The following statement should be included:
Informed consent: “Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.”
If identifying information about participants is available in the article, the following statement should be included:
“Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.”
2. Procedures for dealing with unethical behavior
2.1 Identification of unethical behavior
Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone. Misconduct and unethical behavior may include, but need not be limited to, examples as outlined above.
Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate. Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.
2.3 Minor breaches
Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
2.4 Serious breaches
Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher as appropriate, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.
2.5 Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction)
Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behavior.
Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
A formal letter to the head of the author’s or reviewer’s department or funding agency.
Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.