The Journal of Deep Space Exploration follows the recognized publication ethics. We firmly oppose plagiarism in any form. Authors submitting articles to the journal should affirm that the article contents are original. They should also warrant that the article has neither been published elsewhere in any language fully or partly, nor is it under review for publication anywhere.
1.1 Definitions of academic misconduct
Academic misconduct refers to dishonesty, misbehavior and moral abnormality in academia, or the phenomenon that someone plagiarizes the research results of others, corrupts academic atmosphere, impedes academic progress, violates scientific spirit and morality, abandons the principle of truth and honesty in scientific experimental data, causes a severe negative impact on science and education, and greatly damages the academic image.
1) Plagiarism: It is the dishonest representation of another author's (or one's own) unpublished work or scientific research results (inclusive of texts, graphics, images, and ideas) as one's own (new) work or results in articles to be published.
2) Fabrication: It is the false making of materials, data, results or resumes (titles) for being recorded or reported;
3) Falsification: It is the action of manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record, or falsifying the description of the process and intentionally altering the actual situation.
4) Abuse of peer review privileges: It is in the process of peer review to intentionally ignore and conceal negative results, or conceal and modify data, exaggerating positive value.
5) Inappropriate authorship mainly includes
(1) Excluding those with substantial contributions to the research in the paper from the byline;
(2) Listing those without substantial contributions to the research in the paper in the byline;
(3) Listing a person in the byline without the person's consent;
(4) The ranking of authors being not in line with their actual contributions to the paper.
Editors and reviewers should reject any form of bribes and articles concerned to avoid reviews and manuscripts that receive preferential treatment.
2. Publication Malpractice Statement
2.1 Duties of editors, authors and reviewers
The editors, authors, and reviewers of Journal of Deep Space Exploration should perform the following duties, and adhere to other guidelines and requirements of the journal.
2.1.1 Duties of editors
The editorial office should comply with the following rules when arranging peer review for submissions:
1) The research field of selected peer review experts is the same or similar to that of the paper to be reviewed, and the experts don't have benefit-based relationships with authors of the paper;
2) Generally, reviewers recommended by authors are not selected as review experts for the paper;
3) Generally, two experts are assigned to review each manuscript and make comments. If there is a big difference between the two experts' reviews, a third expert will be assigned to review it;
4) The review period should be limited within 2 months.
2.1.2 Duties of authors
Welcome to contribute to Journal of Deep Space Exploration. Please complete the following steps to make your manuscript enter the review procedure successfully.
1) Please read carefully the paper publishing agreement. If you are clear about and agree to the agreement, please proceed to the next step.
2) Please download the basic manuscript format and manuscript template in the download center to check and correct your format and abstract, and prepare an electronic edition of your article. Manuscripts that don't conform to the standards of this journal will not be accepted.
3) Please ensure that the authors' address, telephone number, e-mail address, and other contact information are clear. Each article should have a corresponding author, and the corresponding author and the first author can be the same person.
4) Please recommend 4 reviewers when contributing your manuscript to this journal. Reviewers recommended should come from at least three institutions and please be sure to give their e-mail addresses. The recommended experts will be used as a reference by this journal.
5) As you complete the steps above, please download the sheet of Confidentiality Review and print it. After it is signed and sealed, please send it to the editorial office of this journal. Address: Editorial Office of Journal of Deep Space Exploration, Room 234, No.10 Office Building, Beijing Institute of Technology, No.5 Zhongguancun South Street. Tel: 68915834. If there is no paper signature sheet, manuscripts will not be accepted!
This journal will arrange preliminary reviews and use the CNKI academic misconduct detection system for manuscripts that fulfill the submission steps above. If your manuscript accords with the requirement (similarity ≤15% to key words and sentences of existing published articles), this journal will send a "receipt notice" to you through the website to confirm your successful submission and inform you of the manuscript number. Afterward, your manuscript will enter the formal review procedures. Please do not contribute your manuscript repeatedly to avoid repeated registration by the editorial office. Thank you!
2.1.3 Duties of reviewers
Manuscripts that have passed preliminary reviews are evaluated under peer review with the double-blind system (the author and the reviewer do not know each other's identity). The peer review complies with the following specifications.
Peer review experts should abide by the following specifications:
1) Review whether the manuscript has reached the publication level, whether there is any innovation, and whether the experiment and demonstration are reasonable, etc. Whether or not it can be published, write out review comments and point out the innovation, suggestions on revision or reasons why the manuscript cannot be published.
2) Point out what statements in the manuscript need a further reference to published research results, during which the expert should not exaggerate his or her own academic contribution and force authors to cite the content;
3) Consider not only academic value but also the academic code of ethics. For suspected academic misconduct, the expert should report it to the editorial office. Depending on the seriousness of the misconduct, the editorial office should ask instructions from the executive deputy editor in chief and the editor in chief on whether to initiate an academic ethics investigation or to send back manuscripts due to moral abnormality;
4) Keep the content of manuscripts confidential before publication.
3. Problem-solving principles and procedures
3.1 Conflicts of interest
1) The editorial office's solution
If a reviewer is found to have a conflict of interest with the author, editors should terminate the peer review immediately and choose another appropriate expert to conduct the review.
2) Invited anonymous reviewer's solution
If a reviewer thinks there is a possible conflict of interest and the objectivity of the review is affected, the reviewer can reject the review; Conflicts of interest include:
a The content of the manuscript is so close to the current research conducted by the reviewer that it is difficult to review it without disturbance;
b The manuscript strongly supports or opposes anonymous reviewer's academic views, which makes the reviewer feel difficult or inconvenient to review it fairly;
c The discussion in the manuscript involves the anonymous reviewer's reputation or economic interests.
3) Solutions used when reviewers cannot judge conflicts of interest
a The reviewer doesn't review the manuscript and contacts the editorial office to explain the situation.
b The reviewer contacts the editorial office to explain the possible conflicts of interest and takes the advice of the office;
c The reviewer conducts the review normally, but the reviewer should attach a statement of a conflict of interest to the review comment, and it is up to the editorial office to decide whether to adopt the review comment.
Please refer to Attachment 1 for the flow chart of peer review issue settlement.
3.2 Reviewers find manuscripts violate academic ethics
During the review, if a reviewer doubts that a manuscript violates academic ethics, especially plagiarism, the improper quotation from the work of others (inclusive of reviewers), ignorance of the quotation from the work of others (inclusive of reviewers) or redundant publications, the reviewer should report it to the editorial office. Depending on the seriousness of the misconduct, the editorial office should ask instructions from the executive deputy editor in chief and the editor in chief on whether to make the author resubmit the manuscript after a revision or to retract the publication.
3.3 Solutions to problems occurred before or after publication
3.3.1 Before publication
Before publication, when improper peer review or academic misconduct is found, the editorial office convenes a meeting of the editorial board to evaluate the seriousness of the problem and to make a decision on the manuscript based on the result. Decisions are mainly publication after revision, conducting another peer review, and retracting the publication with an announcement released.
3.3.2 After publication
After publication, when improper peer review or academic misconduct is found, the editorial office convenes a meeting of the editorial board to evaluate the seriousness of the problem and to make a decision on the manuscript. Decisions mainly include: filing the problem-free record, releasing a corrigendum statement after revision, conducting an after-publication academic review, and retracting the publication, terminating the publication, and releasing an announcement. Please refer to Attachment 2 for the flow of solutions to academic misconduct found before or after publication.