关于期刊学术诚信声明

 

　　为加强科技道德规范，促进科研诚信，维护学术活动的严肃性和声誉，营造学术期刊良好的学术氛围，提高我国科技工作者和科技期刊编辑出版队伍的职业道德水平，保障我国科技事业的健康发展，《电焊机》编辑部郑重发表声明：

　　1. 编辑部充分尊重作者权益，严格遵循三审制度、专家审稿制度，此外，使用学术不端文献检索系统进一步查证落实涉嫌抄袭的论文，杜绝一稿多投、重复发表。对于抄袭、剽窃、弄虚作假等学术不端行为的文章，坚决拒绝刊登。一经发现，由编辑部视情节轻重给予书面警告、拒绝刊登有其署名的稿件、通知其所在单位等处理；情节严重者，将以适当方式予以公布，该作者的论文终生不得刊用，同时通报国家基金资助部门，并转请有关部门进行处理。

　　2. 加强同行评议建设。发挥期刊编委会和审稿专家作用，严格稿件学术质量审查规范，客观、公正对待所有稿件。建立明确的审稿、撤稿及发布制度，维护学术记录的真实性和准确性。如发现已发表的论文存在弄虚作假、抄袭剽窃或严重差错等问题，应在最短的时间内，采取及时发布撤稿声明、更正启事或公开致歉信等方式进行纠正，并通知收录有关文章的数据库予以撤稿。如发现审稿人利用审稿谋取私利乃至剽窃所审稿件内容时，将根据情节轻重分别予以警告、终生禁止其审稿乃至公开披露等处分。

　　3. 所有论文署名作者均应对论文工作做出过实质性贡献，并对文章负责。论文投稿前，所有署名作者均须对稿件的全部研究内容进行审查，确保结果准确可靠，确保不存在学术不端行为，并同意署名及共同作者的署名排序。署名作者应对为此项研究做出过某种贡献的合作人员和机构予以感谢。论文发表时，应对非涉密研究项目获得的经费支持及来源予以标明。论文作者应明确说明使用或引用他人的工作，如果发现已投递或发表的文章中存有问题，应有责任和义务及时予以修正或提出撤回。

 

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

 

For all parties involved in the act of publishing (authors, editors, reviewers and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior. The ethics statements for our journal are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

 

Editor

1. Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2. The editors must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

3. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the explicit written consent of the authors.

4. The handling editor-in-chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published. The editor-in-chief may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor-in-chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

 

Peer reviewer

1. Peer reviewers assist the editor-in-chief in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

2. Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor-in-chief so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

3. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor-in-chief.

4. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

5. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

6. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

 

Authors

1. Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

2. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

3. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

4. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

5. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as coauthors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

6. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

7. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

8. 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’s editor-in-chief or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

 

Publisher’s confirmation

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors-in-chief, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.

 

The publisher and the journal do not discriminate on the basis of age, color, religion, creed, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its publishing programs, services and activities.