- Share:
Founded in 1971, Aerospace Materials & Technology (bimonthly) is a national academic journal approved by the National Press and Publication Administration. Our journal is sponsored by Aerospace Research Institute of Materials & Processing Technology and authorized by China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation. Our journal is published at home and abroad.
The aim of journal Aerospace Materials & Technology is to improve development of new aerospace materials & technologies, to report update progress in researches and applications, to provide technical information, and to make journal Aerospace Materials & Technology as a window for academic communicating of researchers, designers, manufacturers, testers, college teachers and students.
Publishing research articles in peer-reviewed journals has multiple functions, one of which is to validate, document, and preserve research results. Therefore, the authenticity and reliability of research results are very important. Publishing an academic research paper involves many aspects, including authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers, all of whom play important roles in the publishing process. Therefore, authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers have a responsibility to meet the expected ethical standards of publishing behavior at all stages from submission to publication.
Aerospace Materials & Technology is committed to meeting and upholding standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. We follow closely the industry associations, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)[1], International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME)[2] and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)[3], that set standards and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements. Below is a summary of our key expectations of editors, peer-reviewers and authors.
1. ETHICAL EXPECTATIONS
1.1 Editors’ responsibilities
Editors should adopt a balanced, objective, and fair standard of conduct when fulfilling their duties, and should not adopt discriminatory policies based on the author's gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, political views, race, and nationality.
Funded supplements or special issues follow the same submission and review process as regular submissions, and acceptance is based solely on academic merit, with no regard for commercial interests.
When complaints involving academic ethics occur, editors should follow prescribed procedures and relevant policies for handling. Regardless of when the original publication was published, any complaints from authors will be handled appropriately and responded to reasonably. All documents related to such complaints will be properly preserved.
1.2 Reviewers’ responsibilities
By reviewing manuscripts in a timely and objective manner, reviews should provide a reference for the decision-making process and helps to improve the academic quality of manuscripts.
Any information provided by the editor or author is confidential and reviewers are not allowed to disclose this information without permission, nor are they allowed to keep copies of the manuscript.
If a manuscript under review is found to be suspiciously like a published article or a manuscript under review elsewhere, the relevant editor must be informed immediately.
If the reviewer and the author may have an interest in economic, institutional, collaborative research, or any other aspect, please inform the relevant editor and recuse yourself from reviewing the manuscript if necessary.
1.3 Authors’ responsibilities
The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity of scientific records. The journal will follow the COPE guidelines to address potential misconduct.
Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal and ultimately the entire scientific endeavor. Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation can be achieved by the following rules of good scientific practice.
(1) The manuscript has not been submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration.
(2) The manuscript has not been published previously (partly or in full), unless the new work concerns an expansion of previous work (please provide transparency on the reused material and apply proper citations to avoid the hint of text-recycling (e.g. “self-plagiarism”).
(3) A single study should not be split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions or submit to various journals or one journal over time (e.g. “salami-publishing”).
(4) No data have been fabricated or manipulated (including images) to support your conclusions.
(5) All data, text, and theories from external sources are properly attributed and not presented as own original work. (e.g. “plagiarism”). For unavoidable repetition of text or images, please apply the correct citation of literature, text should be marked with quotation marks, and images need to obtain the publisher's copyrights.
(6) Important note: the journal may use software to scran for plagiarism.
(7) Before submitting the manuscript, the content has been agreed upon by all other co-authors and the institution.
(8) All authors of the manuscript have made substantial contributions and share collective responsibility for the research results.
1.4 Authorship
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a substantial contribution to the work, and each author should be responsible for the data and arguments mentioned in the manuscript.
The corresponding author must obtain permission from all authors before submitting any version of the paper at any stage and any changes to the author's identity.
In addition, after the manuscript is accepted by peer review, changes to the author's identity or order of authors are not accepted. Requests to add or remove authors during the revision stage or after publication are a serious issue, and such requests are only considered after receiving written permission from all authors and a detailed explanation of the role of the new/deleted author. The decision to accept changes lies with the journal editorial office, and the authors should submit relevant documents to verify the legitimacy and validity of the request. The documents can take the form of original data, samples, or related records.
1.5 Disclosure of potential conflict of interests
Authors must declare all relationships or interests that could influence or bias their manuscript. Even if the authors do not feel that there is a conflict, the declaration of relationships and interests provides a more transparent process, allowing for accurate and objective assessment of the manuscript. Readers have the right to know all interest relationships or conflicts related to the research, which does not mean that economic relationships between research work and related institutions are inappropriate. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that are directly or indirectly related to the research may include but are not limited to the following:
(1) Research grants from funding agencies (please give the research funder and the grant number);
(2) Honoraria for speaking at symposia;
(3) Financial support for attending symposia;
(4) Financial support for educational programs;
(5) Employment or consultation;
(6) Support from a project sponsor;
(7) Position on advisory board or board of directors or other types of management relationships;
(8) Multiple affiliations;
(9) Financial relationships, for example, equity ownership or investment interest;
(10) Intellectual property rights (e.g. patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights);
(11) Holdings of spouse and/or children that may have a financial interest in the work.
In addition, it is necessary to declare non-financial interests that are relatively important to the reader, including but not limited to personal relationships or competitive interests directly or indirectly related to this research, or professional interests or personal beliefs that may affect the author's research. The content of the interest statement will be placed together with the corresponding author's part. Please refer to the following examples.
The corresponding author will include a summary statement in the text of the manuscript in a separate section before the reference list. See below examples of disclosures.
Funding: This study was funded by X (grant number X).
Conflict of Interest: Author A has received research grants from Company A. Author B has received a speaker honorarium from Company X and owns stock in Company Y. Author C is a member of committee Z.
If no conflict exists, the authors should state as follows.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
1.6 Informed consent
All individuals have individual rights that are not to be infringed. Individual participants in studies have the right to decide what happens to the (identifiable) personal data gathered and what they have said e.g. during a study or an interview as well as to any photograph that was taken. Hence it is important that all participants gave their informed consent in writing prior to inclusion in the study. Identifying details (names, dates of birth, identity numbers and other information) of the participants that were studied should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and genetic profiles unless the information is essential for scientific purposes, and the participant (or parent or guardian if the participant is incapable) has given written informed consent for publication.
Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve in some cases, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of participants is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic profiles, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning. The following statement should be included:
Informed consent: “Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.”
If identifying information about participants is available in the article, the following statement should be included:
“Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.”
2. Procedures for dealing with unethical behavior
2.1 Identification of unethical behavior
Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone. Misconduct and unethical behavior may include, but need not be limited to, examples as outlined above.
Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
2.2 Investigation
An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate. Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.
2.3 Minor breaches
Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
2.4 Serious breaches
Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher as appropriate, should make the decision whether to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.
2.5 Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction)
Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behavior.
Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
A formal letter to the head of the author’s or reviewer’s department or funding agency.
Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.
