HPLPB Statements of publication ethics

To improve publication quality, strengthen academic integrity, High Power and Particle Beams (HPLPB) makes the following statements about rules the authors, peer-reviewers and editors and editorial office staff should abide by, thus to regulate behaviors in publishing HPLPB papers.

Authors

1) Authors of each HBLPB paper take full responsibility of the content of the manuscript and they should make sure the manuscript is scientific and of high quality.

2）HPLPB only publishes original papers (research papers, reviews and letters), the authors should guarantee that there doesn’t exist plagiarism, false data or pictures, high repetition content, or multiple submission. Authors with academic misconduct will be blacklisted by HPLPB.

3) Domestic authors should ensure their manuscript contains no state secrets. They are required to provide an authorized statement of crypto-censorship to HPLPB.

4）Authors should declare that there exist no conflict of interest in the manuscript. HPLPB takes no responsibility of any manuscript-related conflict.

5）All authors listed in the manuscript should eligible as they satisfy the definition of authors by COPE as “…[at] a minimum, authors should take responsibility for a particular section of the study”，The authors in the byline of the manuscript should be strictly the same (i.e., the same authors in the same order) as that in the copyright agreement, and there should be no careless changes in the author list. In case some authors point out modification or addition/deletion of authors according to objective facts, the change can be made only with the written consent of all the original authors.

6) Involving achievements of others or published content, authors should give objective comments and/or normative citations.

7) HPLPB requires authors to write foundation items relating the manuscript, however, irrelevant foundation items should be excluded.

8）In “acknowledgement”, authors can state the researchers who help the study or the composition of the manuscript but are not signed authors.  

9) Authors can recommend peer-reviewers to HPLPB. HPLPB welcomes true, credible information of peer-reviewers.

10) Authors should respect comments of peer-reviewers. It is required that authors give written explanations about which comments are adopted, revisions made in the manuscript and the cause or reason not to accept some of the comments.

2. Reviewers

1) Reviewers should carry out timely peer-review after accepting the invitation of reviewing, filling the review form and giving specific comments about the manuscript. Reviewers should inform HPLPB editorial office in time about Declination of peer-review or inability to fulfill peer-review for some reason.

2) Reviewers who has conflict of interest with authors or related institutions should avoid peer-review actively.

3）Reviewers should respect science, be objective and fair, make constructive specific comments, not to be rude and not to present emotional critics as well.  

3) Reviewers must keep the manuscript content a secret. They are prohibited to embezzle research findings of the manuscript.

3. Editors and editorial office staff

Editors and editorial office staff should

1）protect image of HPLPB, doing academic misconduct inspection for manuscripts, organizing normative and scientific peer-review processes, not publishing interest-oriented unqualified articles, not intervening in peer-reviewing, thus to publish original high quality HPLPB papers.

2）comply with national publication laws, rules and regulations, publishing HPLPB papers lawfully.

3）keep information of authors and peer-reviewers in secret，also keep the content of a manuscript a secret before it is published.

4）work hard to ensure timely publication, including making in-time contact with authors and reviewers, dealing with the manuscript promptly, etc.

5）be politely and rational while contacting authors and reviewers, i.e., to provide good publishing services, for example, give definite reason of rejection, inform due time of revision, put forward detailed comments for revision.

6）respect comments of experts, while guard authors’ rights and interests; allow authors to argue or appeal and make quick response to solve the problems.

7）reject an edited manuscript for discovery of its academic misconduct; withdraw a  published paper for confirmation of its academic misconduct and publish a withdrawal statement.