Publication Ethics Statement
To promote research integrity and ethics among the scientific community, we, the Editorial Office of Automobile Technology, hereby issue a statement on publication ethics and academic misconduct in compliance with relevant state and international policies and regulations. With a rapid proliferation of research work, it is more important than ever that we continue promoting a healthy ecological environment for fair, equal, and open academic exchange, which has been vital for the robust development of sciences.
1. Responsibilities of Authors
Ensure the submitted research is original (review articles not included), and does not contain such unethical behavior as fraud, plagiarism, unauthorized national confidentiality, conflict of interest or intellectual properties, published findings written in any language.
Do not submit manuscripts to more than one journal at a time or submit to another journal before being informed by the editorial office on the rejection of manuscripts.
Provide clear citations and references in the required format.
Acknowledge contributors and institutions that offer assistance, counseling or funding to the research.
Respond with due respect to suggestions of revision from the reviewers and the handling editor.
The author will transfer the rights of complication, translation, reproduction, distribution, and information network communication to the editorial office of Automobile Technology worldwide from the date of the publication of the manuscript for free.
Academic Misconduct:
1. Multiple submission
(1) Submitted manuscripts that involve the same theory, experimental results, figures/tables or major arguments (despite the different choice of wording) are considered as multiple submission. This does not include submitting follow-up research of published communications, on which the editorial office needs to be informed before submission.
(2) After completing submission, authors shall contact the editorial office in advance and obtain consent before transferring to another journal.
(3) Authors shall be informed by the editorial office on a suspected multiple submission and respond to relevant evidence. The evidence should be checked in a prudent manner by the editorial office before any sanction is made. Conflict between the editorial office and the authors shall be resolved by the higher authority or arbitrated by a third party authority.
(4) Retraction statement of a confirmed multiple submission shall be posted in the latest issue (including the author’s name and institutional affiliations) and informs the author’s institution and other journals in the field.
2. Plagiarism
Plagiarism refers to manuscripts that contain work from others without the authors’ approval, clear citations or acknowledgements, including direct copying or rewriting of data, ideas, concepts or texts. Any form of plagiarism is totally prohibited in publication.
3. Authorship
All listed authors are accountable for the submitted manuscript, whose contributions to the research are acknowledged. Those listed as authors should provide major contributions to the conception, design, implementation or data analysis of the research. Those who make notable contributions to the research must be listed as co-authors. The submitting author should be approved and authorized by co-authors before submission.
4. Fraud
Fraud refers to the author’s fabrication of data or findings that are not direct results from experiments or research. Under no circumstance is fraud allowed in research.
2. Responsibilities of Reviewers
(1) Evaluate and comment on the manuscript in a prudent, objective and fair manner, in terms of whether the research
a. is original, scientifically sound and demonstrates potential for application,
b. includes an appropriate design, accurate results and conclusion,
c. doesn’t contain unauthorized confidentiality.
The reviewer’s comments factor into the editor’s final assessment on the manuscript. Reviewers should provide detailed suggestions of revision and assist the authors in improving the quality of the manuscript.
(2) Give due respect to the research results; avoid manuscripts with conflict of interest; evaluate only on the content of the manuscript without personal judgment or criticism, regardless of the author’s race, gender, religion, faith, status or experience; offer sufficient references to clarify judgments.
(3) Review the manuscripts timely and send comments to the editorial office before the given deadline; inform the editorial office on inevitable delays so that the manuscript could be sent to an alternative reviewer.
(4) Point out published work that are not cited in the manuscript.
(5) Keep the manuscript confidential. Do not transfer, discuss, use or publish the data, ideas or findings obtained from the manuscript.
6) Do not reveal the reviewer’s comment and relevant information for personal advantage.
3. Responsibilities of Editors
(1) Abide by the laws and regulations of P.R.C.; comply with publishing ethics and guidelines; uphold academic integrity; assess all submitted manuscripts timely and fairly; ensure the quality and timely publication of accepted manuscripts.
(2) Ensure that all manuscripts have been subject to testing on originality with appropriate testing software in preliminary view.
(3) Ensure that all accepted manuscripts have been subject to testing on content, without regard to the author’s gender, race, religion or nationality.
(4) Give due respect to the author’s research findings and the reviewers’ comments; keep the manuscript assessment record faithful and maintain the confidentiality of all materials involved in manuscript assessment and revision; do not reveal any relevant information about the manuscript or its submission to other parties, except for the corresponding author, reviewers or members of the editorial board if necessary.
(5) Ensure fair selection of manuscripts: acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is only grounded on its originality, significance, clarity and alignment with the aim and scope of the journal.
(6) Respond to appeals against the reviewer’s comments.
(7) Investigate and follow up academic misconduct; timely respond to appeals of academic misconduct on submitted or published manuscripts; timely issue statements of correction, clarification, retraction or apology if necessary; implement sanctions on misconduct of authors or reviewers.
(8) Ensure that the detailed information of submission or the identity of reviewers and handling editors are kept confidential.
4. Publisher Ethics
(1) Our journal follows the principle of first publication and only publishes academic papers with original research results (review articles not included).
(2) Our Journal will conduct academic misconduct detection on manuscripts, and eliminate academic misconduct such as forgery, plagiarism, tampering, and repeated publication.
(3) For manuscripts that have been finalized and accepted, if academic misconduct is found, our journal has the right to return the manuscript and notify the author’s unit and relevant departments.
(4) For published papers, if academic misconduct is found, our journal will withdraw the paper and publish a retraction statement, and the authors concerned will be included in the blacklist of academic dishonesty, and notify the author’s unit and relevant departments.
4. Responsibilities of Sponsor’s or Publisher’s
Automobile Technology is administrated by State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, sponsored by China FAW Group CO., LTD., and published by Automobile Technology Editorial Office. The requirements of sponsor and publisher for the journal are obeying the academic publishing ethics standard, publishing the accurate, timely, fair, and ethical publication of scientific papers, and improving communication in the scientific community.
The publishing organization can not intervene in peer review.
Identification and Treatment of Academic Misconduct Papers
In order to protect the rights and interests of readers and maintain the quality and reputation of this journal, the editorial office of Automobile Technology will strictly test and screen papers in the publishing process, and continue to implement the rejection system and deal with papers identified as academic misconduct seriously. The specific detection and identification process and treatment methods are hereby announced as follows:
1. The journal adopts the “Academic Misconduct Literature Check(AMLC)” to automatically detect the papers, and takes the general library of online publishing of China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database to detect academic misconduct papers such as plagiarism and plagiarism, forgery, tampering, improper signature, multiple submission of one draft and so on.
2. Scope of papers to be tested
(1) All submissions;
(2) Readers report suspected plagiarism of papers.
3. Identification of academic misconduct papers
The “Academic Misconduct Literature Check” is used to check the duplicate of the paper. If the duplication rate is 15% or more, the paper and the comparison paper shall be submitted to the reviewer together to determine the nature and form of the duplication of the paper, and prepare the Opinion on the Identification and Treatment of the Similarity between the Paper and the Comparison Paper.
The criteria for identifying papers as academic misconduct are as follows:
(1) Copying the achievements of others in the original or basically intact content of the thesis;
(2) In the content of the paper, changing the type of other people’s achievements and regard the achievements completed by others as the achievements completed by themselves independently. Or not changing the type of achievements, but making use of the copyright protected elements in the achievements and changing the specific forms of expression of the achievements, and treating the achievements completed by others as the achievements completed independently by themselves;
(3) Using the protected views of others to form the whole, core or main views of his own paper, and taking the protected academic achievements of others as the main part or substantive part of his own academic paper;
(4) Fabricating or tampering with research results, investigation data, experimental data or literature in a paper;
(5) Quoting other people’s protected views, plans, materials, data, etc., without annotation or explanation of the source;
(6) Multiple submissions of one draft.
4. Treatment of papers identified as academic misconduct
(1) In a prudent manner, the editorial department shall timely notify the author of the papers finally identified as academic misconduct, and allow the author to explain and defend this issue before making a decision.
(2) If the paper has been hired but not officially published, inform the author that the paper will be returned directly in the manuscript processing process of the website of this journal, cancel its employment qualification, and give criticism, education and warning to the author.
(3) If the paper has been officially published, notify the author of the paper in writing, cancel the employment qualification of the paper, and order the author to return the manuscript fee of the paper. If it causes reputation or other losses to the journal, the journal will reserve the right to continue to pursue compensation.
(4) If the circumstances are serious, the author’s unit and name will be published in the journal at a selected time, as well as the notice of canceling the paper, and the event will be notified to the author’s unit and relevant scientific and technological journals in the field;
(5) For the papers written by the author as the first author who seriously plagiarizes and submits more than one draft, this journal will not be employed within 2 years.
5. Handling of author’s objection
If the author of the paper disagrees with the identification and handling results of the journal, he can submit a written application for review to the editorial department of the journal within 10 working days from the date of receiving the notice (the journal will not accept it if it is overdue). The editorial department is responsible for inviting experts to review the paper, making final treatment opinions, and notifying the author of the review results within 30 working days.