1. Peer Review System
World Sci-Tech R&D upholds the fairness and seriousness of academic publishing, strictly implementing a peer review system with a “double-blind” review process.
After submission, the manuscript first undergoes an initial review (usually within 5 working days) to check for academic misconduct in authoritative databases and determine the scientific and originality of the manuscript. Then, it is sent for external review by experts to evaluate its scientific, innovative, and practical aspects (the author’s name, affiliation, and other related information are hidden before sending for review, and the selected reviewers are not from the same system as the author to ensure fairness, impartiality, and objectivity). After the author revises the manuscript based on expert opinions, it will be re-reviewed by the deputy editor and then sent to the editor-in-chief for final review to determine whether it will be accepted.
2. Author Ethics
1) Authors are responsible for the authenticity of their papers and must cooperate with the editorial department to provide original images, original data, fund project task books, and project names as proof materials.
2) Authors should carefully read the submission guidelines, paper templates, reference formats, and the copyright transfer & academic ethics commitment form, and write their papers according to the journal’s requirements.
3) The listed authors must be substantial contributors to the paper, and the journal firmly resists listing those without substantial academic contributions. The order of authorship should be confirmed by all authors. Co-corresponding authors should not exceed two in principle. The authorship should not be changed in principle; if changes are necessary, a written request for change should be submitted to the editorial department, stating the reasons, and signed by all listed authors.
4) When there is more than one author, the specific contributions of each author should be stated at the end of the article.
5) Submitted papers should be original, not previously published in other journals or in other forms, without plagiarism, fabrication, or multiple submissions, and should not involve confidentiality or other copyright-related infringement issues.
6) If the work of others is used in the paper, it should be cited in the form of references.
7) If the content of the paper involves sensitive topics, the author should cooperate with the editorial department to provide proof of non-confidentiality.
8) When authors find significant errors or inaccuracies in their published papers, they should promptly notify the editorial department and cooperate with them to retract the paper or publish an appropriate correction statement.
9) Strictly follow the Integrity Reminder on Common Problems or Errors in Academic Paper Authorship.
Integrity Reminder on Common Problems or Errors in Academic Paper Authorship
Reminder 1: Incomplete or enclosed signatures. Academic conventions and journal requirements should be followed, and scholars who participate in the scientific research practice process and make substantial contributions should be signed. Honorary, gift-giving and interest-exchange signatures are opposed.
Reminder 2: Improper order of paper signatures. According to academic publishing conventions or journal requirements, the author's contribution to the paper is reflected, and the order of signatures is determined by the authors of the paper. It is opposed to arbitrarily modifying the order of signatures after peer review and before the paper is published. Some disciplines do not use the degree of contribution to determine the order of signatures, and follow their regulations.
Reminder 3: Too many first authors or corresponding authors. Signatures should be made based on the author's substantial contribution to avoid too many first authors or corresponding authors, which will cause ambiguity among peers.
Reminder 4: Impersonation of author signatures. Impersonating the name of the author without the knowledge of the scholar. Before the paper is published, each author should be informed and consented, and each author should have the right to know about the publication of the paper and recognize the basic academic views of the paper.
Reminder 5: Failure to use annotations and other means to declare relevant conflicts of interest that should be disclosed. Public statements of conflicts of interest should be provided in accordance with international practices and relevant standards. For example, whether there is a conflict of interest between the source of funding and the research content.
Reminder 6: Failure to fully use the acknowledgment method to express the contributions of other scientific research staff, resulting in intellectual property disputes and scientific research ethics disputes.
Reminder 7: Failure to correctly sign the affiliated institution. The signature of the author's institution should be the name of the institution where the paper work was mainly completed. It is opposed to inappropriately using the changed institution name due to changes in the author's affiliated institution.
Reminder 8: The author does not use the contact information of his or her affiliated unit as his or her own contact information. It is not recommended to use social communication methods such as public mailboxes as the author's contact information.
Reminder 9: Failure to cite important literature. The author should have a comprehensive and systematic understanding of the predecessors' work foundation and directly related important literature of this scientific research work, and be sure that no representative literature in this field has been omitted.
Reminder 10: After the paper is published, if defects in the article are found or there are violations of scientific research norms in the relevant research process, the author should take the initiative to declare corrections or request withdrawal of the manuscript.
3.Editor/Editorial Board Ethics
1) Editors/Editorial Board members should handle each manuscript fairly, impartially, and promptly, and make decisions on acceptance or rejection based on the importance, originality, scientific quality, readability, authenticity of the research, and its relevance to the journal.
2) Editors/Editorial Board members should not be biased against the author’s affiliation, gender, professional title, academic honors, etc.
3) Editors/Editorial Board members should adhere to confidentiality principles, keeping the author’s research content confidential and the personal information of external reviewers confidential.
4) Editors/Editorial Board members should not interfere with the peer review process of external reviewers, ensuring that reviewers independently provide review suggestions.
5) When selecting external reviewers, editors/editorial board members should avoid reviewers from the same region as the author, with no fewer than two peer reviewers, and should avoid selecting reviewers from the same region as much as possible. The listed authors should not be selected as external reviewers.
6) For external reviewers recommended by the author, editors/editorial board members should carefully review their basic information, academic background, and whether they have any interest or conflict with the author, and cautiously decide whether to send the manuscript for review. For reviewers that the author requests to avoid, if the reasons provided are sufficient, their choice should be respected as much as possible.
7) Editors/Editorial Board members are responsible for avoiding academic misconduct such as multiple submissions and duplicate publications, and should check and review the initial submission, accepted papers, and papers about to be published.
8) Editors/Editorial Board members should respect the author’s views and writing style, and all key modifications should be agreed upon by the author.
4.External Reviewer Ethics
1) When receiving a review invitation, external reviewers should first understand the journal’s positioning and review requirements and assess whether their professional knowledge and research direction match the manuscript to be reviewed. If not, they should promptly and clearly inform the editor/editorial board and suggest replacing the external reviewer.
2) External reviewers should assess their time allocation and whether they can submit review comments within the specified time. If not, they should promptly inform the editor/editorial board or negotiate an acceptable review time to avoid delaying the review process.
3) External reviewers should adhere to the principles of fairness, impartiality, confidentiality, and timeliness, providing responsible review comments on the manuscript, honestly, objectively, and impartially evaluating its strengths and weaknesses, and giving reasonable and constructive review comments without disclosing the author’s research content.
4) When external reviewers find that the author’s research is similar to their own, they should not use the review convenience to suppress or belittle the author’s paper. When they find that the manuscript has a conflict of interest (such as project team members, colleague relationships, mentor-student relationships, family relationships, etc.), they should voluntarily avoid it.
5) External reviewers should adhere to the confidentiality principles of peer review, avoiding disclosing manuscript-related information to any unrelated persons during and after the review process.
6) Without the permission of the journal’s editorial department, reviewers should not delegate others (colleagues, students, etc.) to review the manuscript without authorization.
5. Integrity Reminders on Regulating the Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Scientific Research Activities
Reminder 1: When selecting topics for research, literature retrieval, and data collation, artificial intelligence technology can be used to track research trends, collect and sort out references, and identify the authenticity, accuracy, and reliability of AI-generated information; Oppose the direct use of unverified AI-generated research reports, topic selection suggestions, literature reviews, etc.
Reminder 2: If the content generated by artificial intelligence is used in the writing of the application materials, you should be responsible for the content and fully and truthfully declare the use; Oppose the direct use of unverified AI-generated submissions.
Reminder 3: When collecting and using data, such as using simulation data, test data, etc. generated by artificial intelligence, or using artificial intelligence technology to conduct statistical analysis of raw data, the use of data should be fully and truthfully declared; Oppose the use of AI-generated data as experimental data.
Reminder 4: In the production of audio, video and charts, artificial intelligence technology can be used to assist in the completion, the generated content should be identified, and the use of the content should be fully and truthfully declared; Oppose the use of artificial intelligence to directly generate audio, video and graphics.
Reminder 5: When writing the results, artificial intelligence technology can be used to assist in sorting out existing theories, materials and methods, etc., and language polishing, translation, and standardization can be checked; Oppose the use of AI-generated content as a core innovation, and oppose the use of AI to generate entire results and references.
Reminder 6: In peer review, it is opposed to using artificial intelligence technology to write peer review opinions, and the review information must not be uploaded to a tool platform that has not been approved by the review organizer.
Reminder 7: If AI technology is used in scientific research activities, the name, version, date and process of use of the tool should be stated in the notes, acknowledgments, references or appendices. Objection to direct use without declaration.
Reminder 8: When choosing artificial intelligence technology, service tools that have been registered by the state should be used; Oppose the abuse of artificial intelligence technology to endanger data security, infringe intellectual property rights, and disclose personal privacy.
6.Identification and Handling of Academic Misconduct
To purify the public academic platform, strengthen the construction of academic ethics norms for scientific journals, promote research integrity, advocate good academic practices, protect the rights and interests of readers and authors, and maintain the academic quality and reputation of this journal, the editorial department will use the "Academic Misconduct Literature Detection System (AMLC)" of CNKI in multiple manuscript processing procedures to detect academic misconduct in papers. If the repetition rate is higher than 15%, it is considered that there may be academic misconduct. Papers identified as academic misconduct will be handled accordingly based on the severity.
1) Scope of Paper Detection
① All submitted papers, accepted papers, and papers to be published;
② Papers with academic misconduct-related questions raised during peer review;
③ Papers reported to be suspected of academic misconduct.
2) Standards for Identifying Academic Misconduct
This journal mainly uses the "Academic Misconduct Literature Detection System" of CNKI for plagiarism detection. For papers with a high repetition rate or obvious doubts in the detection report, the editorial department will submit the detection report to the editorial board or review experts to confirm whether the paper is suspected of academic misconduct.
The standards for identifying academic misconduct are as follows:
①Plagiarism: Directly publishing others' ideas, viewpoints, data, images, research methods, textual expressions, etc., without citation or explanation, in one's own name; excessive citation of others' published content.
② Fabrication: Making up or falsifying data or facts.
③ Falsification: Intentionally altering data or facts to make them lose authenticity.
④ Improper Authorship: The authorship does not match the actual contribution of the authors to the paper.
⑤ Duplicate Submission: Submitting the same paper or papers with only minor differences (such as different titles, keywords, abstracts, author order, author affiliations, or slight differences in the main text) to multiple journals, or resubmitting to other journals within the agreed or statutory period.
⑥ Redundant Publication: Repeating a large amount of content from one's already published works in a new paper.
⑦ Salami Slicing: Splitting research results based on the same theme, data, and materials, which could have been published as one paper, into several publishable units and publishing them as multiple papers.
3) Handling of Papers Identified as Academic Misconduct
① The journal will prudently handle papers finally identified as academic misconduct, promptly notify the authors, and allow them to explain and defend within the specified time.
② If the paper has not been accepted, the journal will immediately terminate its processing, return the manuscript, and warn the author; if the paper has been accepted but not yet published, the journal will return the manuscript, cancel its acceptance, and archive and warn the author; if the paper has been officially published, the journal will issue a retraction notice in the print version and on the official website, notify cooperating databases, terminate the dissemination of the paper, and inform the author's affiliated institution about the incident.
③ For papers with serious plagiarism or multiple submissions, the journal will never accept papers written by the first author and corresponding author.
4) Handling of Authors' Objections
If the authors have objections to the journal's identification and handling results, they can submit a written application for re-examination within the specified time after receiving the notice (the journal will not accept overdue applications). The journal will invite experts to re-review the paper, make a final decision, and notify the authors of the re-examination results.