《分析试验室》出版伦理规范

为加强《分析试验室》的学术诚信建设，规范论文撰写及编审、出版过程，抵制学术不端行为，本刊依据《中华人民共和国著作权法》、中国科协发布的《科技期刊出版伦理规范》等国内外出版伦理有关条款，并结合本刊实际情况，制定《分析试验室》出版伦理规范，以供作者、审稿者、编辑、出版者参考。

一、作者伦理

1.作者应对论文的真实性负责，有责任配合编辑部要求提供原始图片、原始数据、基金立项任务书和项目名称等证明材料。

2.作者在投稿时除保证稿件内容真实性之外，还应证明稿件无一稿多投、重复发表、拆分发表，不涉及保密问题，作者署名及机构标注无争议等。

3.作者署名原则上按贡献大小排序，由论文署名作者共同商定，并在投稿前确定。作者和单位署名一般不得更改，如确需变更时，论文主要负责人（第一作者和通信作者）需向编辑部提交书面变更申请，陈述理由，并由全部署名作者签字确认。

4.一般情况下，论文中只标注1位通信作者。若为规范的多中心或多学科协作研究，通信作者确实超过1位的，可酌情增加，一般不超过2位。增加的通信作者通常应为合作研究的不同研究机构或不同研究小组的学术负责者。

5.作者在投稿时应声明是否存在利益冲突。如存在利益冲突，应说明可能对其研究结果产生影响的所有经济或非经济利益冲突。

6.作者如果对评审意见、评审结果有异议，可向编辑部提交书面申述，针对每一条评审意见作出详细的解释和说明。

二、审稿者伦理

1.评审专家应坚持公平、公正、保密、及时的原则对稿件做出负责任的评审意见。不得对作者的科研机构、地域、资历、种族等产生偏见或歧视，不得泄露作者的研究内容。

2.当审稿专家与作者存在利益冲突时，为保证评审的公正性，审稿专家应及时向编辑部申明利益冲突，由编辑部决定应否予以回避。

3.当审稿人发现作者从事的研究和自己相近时，不得利用审稿便利压制或者贬低作者的论文。

4.审稿专家应按照约定及时评审稿件，如不能按时评审返回，应履行及时告知责任。

三、编辑伦理

1.编辑应公平、公正、及时地处理每一篇稿件，并根据论文的重要性、原创性、科学性、可读性、研究的真实性及其与期刊的相关性做出接受或拒稿的决定。

2.编辑应遵守保密原则，严格保守审稿人信息和作者的研究内容。

3.编辑不得受利益驱使干预同行评价，努力保证同行专家的独立评审，以确保同行评议的公平公正。

4.对于作者推荐的同行评议专家，编辑应核实其审稿人信息是否真实，并根据被推荐的评审专家的研究领域和专长，与作者是否存在利益冲突等情况决定是否采用被推荐的审稿人。如果作者要求回避某专家评审其稿件，并且这一要求是合理的，则编辑应给予尊重。

5.编辑在选取论文评审专家时，应尽量避免与作者为同一单位，不得选择署名作者作为审稿专家。

6.编辑对作者的申诉应该慎重对待，并组织集体讨论或请评审专家重新审阅。

7.编辑有责任避免一稿多投和重复发表等学术不端行为，如发现一稿多投、抄袭等学术不端论文的，2年内拒绝署名作者投稿。

8.编辑要尊重作者的观点、行文风格，对论文所做的涉及学术观点等关键性修改都应征得作者的同意。    

四、出版者伦理

1.本刊遵循首发的原则，报道原创性研究成果。

2.对已经定稿录用的稿件，若发现存在学术不端行为，本刊有权退稿，并通告作者及所在单位。

3.对已经发表的论文，若发现存在学术不端行为，本刊将作撤稿处理，刊登撤稿声明。

4.本刊公布作者所需要的详尽指南（如投稿指南、写作指南等），并及时更新。

5.本刊制定有管理编辑、作者、审稿人和编委会成员利益冲突的制度。

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Publishing Ethics

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior.

 

For Authors

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original work, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data.

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.

Authors of papers should include all those who have made substantial contributions to the research work of the papers and they should be sorted according to their contributions or conventions. At the same time, all the authors signed should be responsible for the research results, including academic and moral obligations.

All submissions must include disclosure of all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest.

The author may submit a written statement to the editorial department if he/she disagrees with the review result, giving a detailed explanation for each review opinion.

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 editor or publisher and to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Statements of compliance are required if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, or if it involves the use of animal or human subjects.

Studies on patients or volunteers require ethics committee approval and informed consent, which should be documented in the paper.

For Reviewers

To comment the manuscript objectively and timely: Reviewers should not prejudice or discriminate against the author's research institution, geographical qualification, nationality, etc.

Treat the manuscript as confidential: To ensure that all unpublished data, information and discussion in a submitted article remain confidential and not to use reported work in unpublished, submitted articles for their own research.

To inform the editor if there is a conflict of interest: Reviewers should not review manuscripts authored or co-authored by a person who has a close personal or professional relationship with the reviewer.

To inform the editor of any similarity between the submitted manuscript and another either published or under consideration.

Review the manuscript in time according to the agreement,if cannot return the manuscript on time, the reviewer should timely inform the editor.

For Editors

To comment the manuscript objectively and timely: Editorsshould make a decision to accept or reject the submitted manuscript based on its importance, originality, scientific readability, authenticity of the study and its relevance to the journal.

To keep the information of reviewers and the research content of authors confidentiality, editors should abide by the principle of confidentiality strictly.

Editors shall not interfere with peer review for profit, and strive to ensure the independent review by peer experts. Editors should avoid choosing the signed author as the reviewer being in the same organization as the author.

Editors have the responsibility to reject submissions of authors who have committed academic misconduct, such as multiple submissions and duplicate publication within 2 years.