•  
  •  
 

Publication Ethics Statement

Ethical Guidelines to Publication in Journal of Electrochemistry

Journal of Electrochemistry is committed to meeting and upholding standard ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. Pursuing truth and promoting academic exchanges, Journal of Electrochemistry reports original experimental technological achievements and avoids publishing dishonest paper. We follow the requirements and guidelines given by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) closely and strictly in order to meet these standards. Below is a summary of what we expect from our reviewers, editors and authors.

Journal of Electrochemistry asks our reviewers, editors, and authors to understand ethical issues in publishing and follow the guidelines outlined below.

Journal of Electrochemistry is an open access journal, meaning that it is fully open access and has no remuneration for authors whose articles are accepted in the journal. We allows all readers around the world to have free access to articles published in Journal of Electrochemistry.

Ethical expectations

1) REVIEWERS

Reviewers play a critical role in the evaluation of research presented in a manuscript and should consider participating in the peer review process to be part of their professional responsibilities. The quality of work published in a field is best managed if qualified professionals regularly participate in the peer review process. Reviewers must be able to provide fair and constructive review while maintaining the confidentiality of the review process. Below are some issues that reviewers should know:

  1. Blind refereeing processes are conducted.
  2. Reviewers are expected to contribute to the decision-making process (whether to accept or decline an article).
  3. Reviewers must review each manuscript fairly and objectively, and should give the final review results based on the value and quality of the manuscript, regardless of the author's race, religion, nationality, gender, seniority, or institutional background.
  4. When the reviewers receive the review invitation, they must clarify any potential conflicts of interest with the manuscript, including any relationship with the author, to ensure that there is no prejudice against the manuscript. If a reviewer is uncertain whether a competing or conflicting interest exists, the reviewer should contact editorial office immediately.
  5. Reviewers should make every reasonable effort to review the manuscript. Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript with no intention of submitting a review. It is important that reviewers submit the review in accordance with the timeline communicated at the time the invitation is accepted. If the review is not possible or the review comments cannot be submitted on time, the editor should be notified in time.
  6. Reviewers should give an objective, fair, and effective review opinion based on the value, quality, and journal conditions of the manuscript to help the editor make the final decision and help the author improve the content of the manuscript.
  7. Reviewers should report to the editorial office in time the misconceptions, erroneous views, logical fallacies, ungrounded conclusions, suspected plagiarism, suspected data counterfeiting, etc. No personal criticism of the author should appear in the review comments.
  8. Reviewers should comply with the following confidentiality requirements:
  9. Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not retain and/or copy the manuscripts or discuss them with others.

    10. Reviewers are not allowed to use the unpublished work described in the manuscript in their own work.

    Reviewers are not allowed to retain a copy of the manuscript after the peer review process is complete.

    Reviewers are not allowed to disclose publicly which specific manuscripts they have reviewed.

    Reviewers are not allowed to disclose publicly any details regarding the manuscripts reviewed.

    Reviewers are not allowed to disclose their identity to the authors.

    Reviewers may request to engage other colleagues in the review after receiving approval of editor. Reviewers are not allowed to elicit assistance from colleagues during the review without obtaining the permission of the editor.

    Reviewers may publicly disclose that they have served as a peer reviewer for Journal of Electrochemistry.

2) EDITORS

As mediators in the peer-review and publication process, editors of the Journal of Electrochemistry have significant responsibilities and duties to ensure the review process proceeds smoothly and fairly. Below are the responsibilities and expectations for our editors:

  1. Quality Assurance: Editors are responsible for the quality of the journal and must continually upgrade it to meet the needs of both readers and authors.
  2. Objectivity and Fairness: Editors should handle submissions in a balanced, objective, and fair manner, without considering the author's race, religion, nationality, gender, seniority, or institutional background. Articles should be considered and accepted solely based on their academic merit.
  3. Conflict of Interest: Editors must be aware of any potential conflicts of interest with the manuscript, including any relationship with the authors, to ensure there is no prejudice against the manuscript.
  4. Initial Assessment: If an article is not suitable for the journal's scope, editors should directly reject the manuscript without peer review.
  5. Peer Review: Editors should ensure that each article is peer-reviewed by at least two experts in the field.
  6. Confidentiality: Editors must keep the peer review process confidential and not share information about the article with anyone outside the peer review process.
  7. Use of Unpublished Material: Editors must not use unpublished material from the reviewed manuscripts in their own research without the authors’ express written consent.
  8. Self-Authored Work: Editors may not handle the peer review of self-authored work and must assign their manuscript to another editor.
  9. Handling Complaints: Upon receiving complaints about ethical issues, editors should immediately take action to investigate, obtain evidence, and implement necessary measures.
  10. Errata and Retractions: If there is solid evidence of a problem with the main content or conclusion of a published article, editors need to perform appropriate errata work. Editors are guided by COPE's guidelines for retracting articles, issuing expressions of concern, and issuing corrections.
  11. Efficiency and Timeliness: Editors must strive to handle articles efficiently and in a timely manner.

3) AUTHORS

Authors are primarily responsible for maintaining high ethical standards during manuscript publication. To uphold academic integrity, prevent misconduct, and improve the journal's quality, authors are required to adhere to the following publishing ethics:

  1. Familiarity with Guidelines: Authors should review the Guide for Authors to understand the journal's requirements.
  2. Single Submission: Manuscripts must be submitted to only one journal at a time. Manuscripts describing the same work should not be submitted to multiple journals simultaneously. If a manuscript extends earlier work, the original article must be cited.
  3. Originality and Authenticity: The article's content must be original, and the data must be authentic and reliable. Plagiarism, forgery, or data tampering (including images) are not permitted. Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given, including material that is closely copied, summarized, and/or paraphrased. Quotation marks should be used for verbatim copying, and permissions must be secured for copyrighted material.
  4. Plagiarism Screening: The journal may use software to screen for plagiarism.
  5. Data Verification: Authors should be prepared to submit relevant documentation or data to verify the validity of the results. Authors must keep all original data related to the article for reference if necessary.
  6. Avoid Defamation: Authors must avoid making defamatory statements that could harm others.
  7. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: All conflicts of interest must be disclosed in a conflict of interest statement.
  8. Safety and Ethics: All potential safety concerns and hazards associated with the research should be addressed. If the research involves human subjects or animal experiments, authors must provide documents concerning ethical assessments and informed consent from participants.
  9. Funding Source Disclosure: Authors must indicate the source of all research funding for the article.
  10. Reviewer Suggestions: Authors should avoid suggesting reviewers with whom they have personal or professional relationships that could compromise an unbiased review.
  11. Significant Contributions: All authors listed on the manuscript should have made significant scientific contributions to the research described.
  12. Accurate Attribution: The author and institutional affiliations must be accurately represented. Improper attribution practices, such as excluding contributors, including non-contributors, arbitrarily adding or deleting author names and units, or falsely marking author information, are not allowed. Author ranking should accurately reflect actual contributions.
  13. Consent for Submission: Explicit consent to submit must be received from all co-authors and responsible authorities at the institution/organization where the work was conducted before submission.
  14. Collective Responsibility: Authors whose names appear on the submission must have contributed sufficiently to the scientific work and share collective responsibility and accountability for the results.
  15. Peer Review Participation: Authors are encouraged to participate in the peer review process for the Journal of Electrochemistry.
  16. Investigation of Misconduct: The editorial board and reviewers will investigate and collect evidence if they detect ethical violations or academic misconduct during and after manuscript review. Confirmed misconduct will result in the withdrawal of the article.
  17. Further Information: Additional ethical guidelines for authors can be found on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website.

 

 

Handling of Academic Misconducts

The editorial board will adhere to the COPE guidelines when handling cases of academic misconduct. If validated evidence of academic misconduct is found, the manuscript will be returned to the author, and the author, research team, or affiliated institution will be informed according to the nature of the misconduct. If academic misconduct is discovered in an already published paper, the editorial board will publish a statement in the journal or on its website, announcing the retraction of the paper and deleting all related data from relevant databases to terminate its dissemination. The investigation will include collecting statements from all parties involved, reviewing related documentation, and consulting with the editorial board. A decision will be communicated to all parties within 14 days.

Plagiarism

The journal has a strict policy against plagiarism. All submitted manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using professional plagiarism-checking software. Submitted manuscripts with an unacceptable similarity index resulting from plagiarism are rejected immediately.

Complaints/Appeals

All complaints, concerns, or appeals regarding authorship issues or the peer-review process, including concerns raised post-publication, should be addressed to the Editors-in-Chief, who will investigate the claims by first requesting information from all parties involved and second proposing a course of action in line with academic ethical principles as outlined by the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE; https://publicationethics.org/). Submissions can be halted in the review or publication process until the issues are resolved. In situations where the Editors-in-Chief are involved in the complaint, the Editorial Board members, led by the most senior member, will investigate the claims and propose a course of action. The investigation will include collecting statements from all parties involved, reviewing related documentation, and consulting with the editorial board. A decision will be communicated to all parties within 14 days.

Confidentiality

A submitted manuscript is considered confidential material. The Journal of Electrochemistry will not disclose submitted manuscripts to anyone except individuals who partake in the processing and preparation of the manuscript for publication (if accepted). These individuals include editorial staff, corresponding authors, potential reviewers, actual reviewers, and editors. However, confidentiality may be breached only in cases of suspected misconduct, where the manuscript may be disclosed to ethics committees or relevant institutions as part of the investigation process. The Journal of Electrochemistry shall follow the appropriate COPE flowcharts wherever necessary.

Correction and Retraction of Articles

Corrections may be made to a published article with the authorization of the editor of the journal. Editors will decide the magnitude of the corrections. Minor corrections include typographical errors and minor factual inaccuracies and are made directly to the original article. However, in cases of major corrections, which involve substantial changes to the data or conclusions, the original article will remain unchanged, while the corrected version will also be published. Both the original and corrected versions will be linked to each other. A statement indicating the reason for the major change to the article will also be published. When necessary, retractions will be conducted according to COPE retraction guidelines. (COPE retraction guidelines).

Acknowledgement

Individuals who participated in the development of a manuscript but do not qualify as authors should be acknowledged. Organizations that provided support in terms of funding and/or other resources should also be acknowledged. Acknowledgments should include individuals who contributed significantly to the research but do not meet the criteria for authorship, such as technical support or writing assistance. Funding sources and institutional support should also be acknowledged.