Editing is the central link of the publication of sci-tech journals, which involves specific matters such as reviewing manuscripts, editing processing and contacting with authors. Because there are a large number of subjective factors, it is of great significance for editors to maintain high level of professional ability and ethics. In order to improve editing skills, regulate and restrain editing professional behavior, Blasting not only strictly implements the “editing professional code”, but also formulates the editor ethics for this journal.
In addition to full-time editors, the main body of the code of ethics also covers a series of related personnel involved in the editing work of Blasting, such as manuscript reviewing, abstract translation, part-time proofreading, editing affairs, etc., who are collectively referred to as "editor" in this code.
1. The editor shall deal with all incoming manuscripts in a fair, just and timely manner without delay outside the established process. The editor shall make appropriate decisions based on the quality, originality of the paper and its relevance to the journal, without any connection with the author's age, affiliation, education background or title.
2. Editors should abide by the principle of confidentiality. On the one hand, the reviewer's information should be strictly kept. On the other hand, the author's research should be kept secret. No article shall be released to anyone other than the editorial board or reviewers. If a manuscript is rejected, the contents of the manuscript must not be released after the rejection. During the peer review process, editors should also inform reviewers that it is strictly forbidden to publish the review or use it for their own research.
3. Respect peer review, joint review comments and final review results. Editors should not be motivated by interest to interfere with peer review and should not arbitrarily ignore positive or negative review opinions and make contrary decisions. If it is necessary to attach a review opinion to the author, the editor should not change or delete the opinion as long as there are no inappropriate defamatory or offensive remarks.
4. When selecting experts for paper review, editors should make reasonable evaluation on the qualifications of reviewers and the quality of manuscripts, so as to prevent the publication of results from being suppressed by the peer review process. Editors shall not choose an expert from the same institute to the author as the reviewer, nor any person appears in the authors of the paper or in the acknowledgement.
5. Editors can adjust the acceptance criteria according to the current situation and future trend of the journal, but there should be no difference in the treatment of articles in a short period, especially in the same period.
6. Editors should appropriately help authors and reviewers to communicate with each other. On the one hand, they should evaluate the importance and necessity of communication, which should not be simple, direct and unfiltered, but to carry out necessary information exchange so as not to affect the normal review. On the other hand, it is not allowed to change the author or reviewer's will by deleting or changing to convey wrong information to the other party, so as to avoid misunderstanding and disputes between the two parties.
7. Editors should scientifically analyze the publishing speed and volume, reasonably control the amount of article reserve, receive enough manuscripts to meet the needs of timely publication, and reduce the waiting time of manuscripts in the reserve process. 8. The editor and the author should avoid dealing with the manuscript when there is a conflict of interest (such as kinship, teacher-student relationship, alumni relationship, colleague relationship, and competitive relationship).
9. For manuscripts accepted through the formal procedures of preliminary review, peer review and joint review, the editor must arrange publication unless major errors, plagiarism, academic misconduct and other unethical phenomena are found; Editors should consider publishing controversial results of rigorous scientific research to fully demonstrate that "a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend".
10. The editor should take the author's appeal seriously. The appeal must be reviewed by another expert, who will make a decision after a joint review.
11. Editors should attach importance to the review of manuscripts, avoid academic misconduct such as multiple submissions and repeated publications of one manuscript. They should blacklist those who commit academic misconduct and notify relevant departments when necessary.
12. After strict review and redaction procedures, if there are still mistakes, the editor should admit his own mistakes and timely release the "notice of correction".
13. Editors should respect the author's point of view and style of writing, and should not add, delete or change any element of the manuscript without authorization. They should not change the academic connotation of the text through editing. The editor shall, as far as possible, provide the author with detailed suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection.
14. Editors are responsible for verifying and reviewing the papers and authors that have been complained by readers or found to have potential academic misconduct. The editor should not connive at revocation without appropriate reason, but should check the content and author in detail and report the verification to the editor-in-chief to assist him in making a decision.