Publication Ethics Specification

In order to strengthen the construction of scientific research integrity, standardize the process of writing, submitting and reviewing papers and publishing, and prevent academic misconduct,Software Guide journal has formulated the following publication ethics based on the relevant contents of “Ethical Standards for Scientific Journal Publishing” and the actual practice of the journal.

Ⅰ Author Ethics

1. The author should ensure the originality and legality of the content of the manuscript and be responsible for the authenticity.

2. The same manuscript should not be submitted to more than one journal at the same time (multiple submissions), nor should a manuscript describing the same study be published in more than one journal (duplicate publication).

3. All sources of data used in the studies should be identified and cited honestly and correctly.

4. The author should ensure that the manuscript does not involve confidentiality issues. In experimental studies involving human beings, every precaution shall be taken to protect the privacy of the research subjects, and no personally identifiable information such as names and ID numbers shall be included in the manuscript.

5. Attributed authors must be substantial contributors to the manuscript and need to ensure that the attribution is not disputed.

II. Reviewer Ethics

1.To uphold the principle of academic integrity and respect for academic freedom, and to make an honest, objective and fair assessment of the manuscript. Not to be biased or discriminate against the authors' countries, institutions, races, religions, political beliefs, gender, etc., and not to disclose the authors' research content.

2.When there is a conflict of interest with the author (e.g., kinship, faculty-student, alumni, colleague, competition), the editorial board should be consulted promptly for further advice in order to ensure the fairness of the review.

3.Review comments must not contain unsubstantiated or malicious criticism and unfairness when authors are found to have conducted research similar to the reviewers, and the reviewers should avoid making unfounded allegations.

4.The reviewer should review the manuscript in a timely manner as agreed, and if the review cannot be returned on time, the reviewer should inform the editorial board and withdraw the review in a timely manner; other reviewers can be recommended.

III. Editorial Ethics

1.Based on the reviewers' comments, the editor may accept, reject, or request revision of the manuscript.

2.Each manuscript should be processed in a fair, impartial and timely manner, and the decision to accept or reject a manuscript is based on its importance, originality, scientific merit, timeliness, readability, authenticity and its relevance to the journal.

3.The editors have the responsibility to avoid academic misconduct such as multiple submissions and duplicate publications, and to ensure that every manuscript passes the check and review.

4.Obide by the principle of confidentiality, keep the reviewers' information strictly and keep the authors' research contents confidential.

5.When selecting experts for manuscript review, the editors should try to avoid the situation of reviewers being the same unit as the author and should not choose the signed author as the reviewer.

6.The editors shall not be driven by interests to interfere with peer evaluation and strive to ensure the independent review of peer experts to ensure the fairness and impartiality of the review.

7.Authors' complaints should be treated with care, and if necessary, group discussions should be organized or reviewers should be asked to re-review the manuscript.

IV. Publisher Ethics

1.Strict adhere to objectivity and fairness in the dissertation review process.

2.If a manuscript is accepted in final form, we have the right to reject the manuscript if academic misconduct is found, and notify the author's institution and the relevant journal.

3.For published papers, if academic misconduct is found, they will be retracted, as described in the journal's “identification criteria and disposal principles for academic misconduct”.

4.Publish detailed guidelines required by authors (e.g. submission instructions, paper templates, etc.) and keep them up to date.

Ⅴ. Withdrawals and Corrections

1. Editors should consider withdrawing the manuscript in the following situations: there is clear evidence that the research results are unreliable due to improper behavior (such as data falsification) or honest errors (such as misjudgment or experimental errors); The research results have been previously published elsewhere without appropriate cross referencing, permission, or justification (duplicate publication); Constitutes plagiarism; Reporting unethical research.

2. The retraction notice should be linked to the retraction (i.e. all electronic versions) as much as possible; Clearly identify the retracted article (for example, including the title and author in the retraction title); Timely publication to minimize the harmful effects of misleading publications.

3. Editors should consider publishing corrections when a small portion of a reliable publication is proven to be misleading (especially due to honest errors); The list of authors/contributors is incorrect (i.e. competent authors are omitted or those who do not meet copyright requirements are included).

Please email complaints and suggestions to: softwareguide@163.com .