• ISSN 1000-0615
  • CN 31-1283/S

Publication Ethics Agreement

  • Share:

For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer and the publisher), it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviors. The ethics statements for Journal of Fisheries of China(JFC) are based on theBest Practice Guideline for Journal  Editors released by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 

Editor Responsibilities

Accountability

The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, submit to business needs by compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Fairness

The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure, Conflicts of Interest, and Other Issues

The editor will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concerns, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published inJFC.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprinting or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

The editor should ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. The editor should rescue themselves (i.e. by asking a co-editor, associate editor or any other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. The editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate actions should be taken, such as the publication of retraction or expression of concern.

Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations

The editor should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and looking into suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. The editor should refrain from reviewer and editorial misconduct, and make amendments if it really happens. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

 

Reviewer Responsibilities

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

 

Author Responsibilities

Reporting Standards

Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constituting unethical behaviors are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors should ensure that their works are entirely original, and that the work and/or words of others that they have used have been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research as the published one in other journals. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior, and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be indicated in the manuscript. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of a Manuscript

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

 

Publisher Responsibilities

Editorial Autonomy

Science Press is committed to working with editors to define clearly the respective roles of publisher and of editors in order to ensure the autonomy of editorial decisions, without influence from advertisers or other commercial partners.

Intellectual Property and Copyright

We protect the intellectual property and copyright of Science Press, its imprints, authors and publishing partners by promoting and maintaining each article’s published version of record. Science Press ensures the integrity and transparency of each published article with respect to: conflicts of interest, publication and research funding, publication and research ethics, cases of publication and research misconduct, confidentiality, authorship, article corrections, clarifications and retractions, and timely publication of content.

Publisher’s Confirmation

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.


  • Share: