Identification and Treatment of Academic Misconduct for
Forging & Stamping Technology
In order to protect the right of readers and authors and to maintain the quality and reputation of this journal, Forging & Stamping Technology will test and screen each manuscript strictly in the process of publication. The manuscript will be rejected and punished seriously if it is identified as academic misconduct. The specific testing process and treatment methods are as follows:
1 Statement of responsibilities
1.1 Editors' responsibilities
In the process of accepting papers and editing, always to act in a fair, objective and impartial way to perform the duties of editors, so that the papers are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit.
1.2 Reviewers' responsibilities
In the process of reviewing papers, to assist in improving the quality of the published paper by reviewing the manuscript objectively, in a timely manner. To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. To not retain or copy the manuscript.
1.3 Authors' responsibilities
1.3.1 To ensure that the paper does not infringe on other people's legitimate rights and interests of intellectual property rights, if the infringement of other people's intellectual property rights, all responsibilities and consequences shall be borne by the author.
1.3.2 To guarantee that the paper is the author's original works, not to plagiarize and copy the others' works in any form, not to copy the author's published works in any form, in case of infringement problems such as plagiarism and copy, all responsibilities and consequences shall be borne by the authors.
1.3.3 To ensure that the paper does not have duplicate submission and publication, and if there is the problem of duplicate submission and publication, all responsibilities and consequences will be borne by the author.
1.3.4 To ensure that the paper does not involve any leaks and confidential scientific research projects, if there is any leaks, all responsibilities and consequences will be borne by the author.
1.3.5 To ensure that there is no false content in this paper, if there is a false problem, all responsibilities and consequences will be borne by the author.
1.3.6 To ensure that the right of authorship of this paper is not disputed, if there is the disputes of authorship right, all responsibilities and consequences shall be borne by the author.
2 Identification criteria and treatment rules for academic misconduct
2.1 Academic misconduct detection system
This journal adopts academic misconduct detection system of CNKI for automatic detection, and the China Literature Journals Full-text Database is used as the comparative database, which test academic misconduct behaviors such as paper copy and plagiarism, forgery, tampering, improper attribution, a draft casting two or more journals, etc.
2.2 The range of detection
1) All papers will be detected uniformly before receiving;
2) All papers that have been received will be detected uniformly before publishing;
3) The papers that are accused with plagiarism by readers
2.3 Identification of academic misconduct
2.3.1 Allowable limits of duplication rate
The duplication rate is less than 12% for the general papers. The duplication rate is less than 26% for the summary papers.
The academic misconduct detection system of CNKI is used to detect the duplication rate of the manuscript. The manuscript and the comparative one will be submitted to reviewers who will determine the repetition nature and form if the duplication rate is up to or exceeds the allowable limits. Reviewing experts will give advice about how to deal with this issue.
2.3.2 The criteria of the manuscript identified as academic misconduct are as follows:
1) The manuscript content copies intact or basically from other achievements.
2) The content of the manuscript that changes the type of others’ achievement or does not change the type but changes the specific forms of others’ achievements which are protected by copyright and use it as their own independent complete works;
3) The manuscript content uses others’ protected opinions to construct the total, core or main ideas, use others’ protective academic achievements as its own main body or substantial part;
4) The manuscript content fabricates or tampers the research achievements, survey data, experimental data or documents information;
5) The manuscript content cites others’ protected ideas, schemes, information, data and so on, but no comments or original source are listed;
6) A manuscript casting two or more journals.
2.4 The treatment methods of identified academic misconduct papers:
1) The editorial department treats the paper eventually identified as academic misconduct prudently, and informs authors timely, allowing authors to explain and defend for this issue before making a treatment decision;
2) If the paper is already received but has not been officially published, we will notify the author that the paper will be directly treated as rejected paper in the manuscript-handling process and the employment qualification will be canceled. In addition, the author is given criticism education and warning;
3) If the paper has been officially published, the author will be informed literately that the accepted qualification will be canceled and the remuneration should be paid back. Additionally, we will reserve the right to recourse claims if the matter causes any loss to reputation or others to our journal.
4) If the circumstances are serious, the authors’ name and their departments will be publicly notified on the journal at some specific date and the withdraw of this right paper will be also notified. What’s more, the events will be notified to the authors’ work unit and other science and technology journals in this area;
5) For authors who are accused of serious plagiarism or cast their paper in multiple journals as the first author, our publication will not accept their papers in 2 years;
2.5 The treatment of the dissent of authors:
If authors disagree with the identification and treatment results of our journal, they can put forward the application of recheck to the editorial department literally in 10 working days (inadmissible overdue). The editorial department will invite experts to re-review those papers and then make the final decisions. Authors will be informed in 30 working days.
The above provision will be put into force from the date of release and the editorial office of Forging & Stamping Technology is responsible for the interpretation.
Editorial Office of Forging & Stamping Technology
