1. Research Ethics Rules for Authors
1. Authors are recognized for their own research and assume responsibility for the contents of their papers. Per the guidelines on Good Publication Practice (http://www.publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines), authorship credit should be based only on (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; and (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 must all be met.
2. All authors (i.e., the corresponding author and each coauthor) must complete and submit an Authorship Form with signed statements on Authorship Responsibility, Criteria, and Contributions; Confirmation of Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding; and either Copyright Transfer/Publishing Agreement or Federal Employment.
3. Authors’ specific contributions should be described in the Acknowledgment section in the manuscript. All other persons who have made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (e.g., data collection, analysis, or writing or editing assistance) but who do not fulfill the authorship criteria should be named with their specific contributions and affiliations in the Acknowledgment section. Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship. Written permission to include the names of individuals in the Acknowledgment section must be obtained.
4. The corresponding author (or coauthor designee) will serve on behalf of all coauthors as the primary correspondent with the editorial office during the submission and review process. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript is complete and for ensuring that the conflict of interest disclosures reported in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript are accurate. The corresponding author must obtain written permission from each person named in the Acknowledgment section and must be willing to provide the editors with copies of those permissions if requested to do so.
5. If authorship is attributed to a large group, the group should meet full authorship criteria and requirements and designate the individuals who accept direct responsibility. The corresponding author should clearly identify all individual authors of the group in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript.
1. Authors should not falsely claim that they have conducted research when they have not. Other researchers’ academic achievements can be used for reference, including the original sources. Presenting other researchers’ research as one’s own constitutes plagiarism. Plagiarism takes different forms from literal copying to paraphrasing some else's work: (1) reproducing a work word for word, in whole or in part, without permission and acknowledgment of the original source to include research materials, processes, tables, or equipment; (2) reproducing someone else's ideas, while not copying word for word, without permission and acknowledgment of the original source; (3) reproducing portions of an author's own work in a paper and resubmitting it for publication as an entirely new paper.
2. Plagiarism complaints will be investigated after the corresponding (or complained-about) author has been informed (due process). The investigation process will begin with a simple comparison of the relevant (two) texts for the simpler forms of plagiarism. A determination may be made to refer the matter to the institution or company where the research took place or any other relevant institution or agency (for example a funding agency) unless the author provides a reasonable explanation (accepted as reasonable by the Editor).
1.3. Multiple, Duplicate, and Concurrent Publication/Simultaneous Submission
1. The Editor assumes that all authors listed in a manuscript have agreed with the following policy of the Journal of Electrochemical Science and Technology and are responsible for the entire content upon submission of the manuscript: “Authors should not submit articles previously published or in press or under review. Submitting a paper to two or more journals at the same time is not allowed.”
2. Duplicate/multiple publication occurs when an author submits portions of his or her own paper that has been previously published in one journal to another journal without disclosing prior submission(s).
3. An author should identify the original paper when he or she writes about different angles or different aspects of his or her own research in two or more articles.
4. Submission of a paper to journals in different languages without acknowledgment of the original is not allowed.
5. When submitting a manuscript, authors should include a letter informing the Editor of any potential overlap with other already-published material or material being evaluated for publication and should state how the manuscript submitted to the Journal of Electrochemical Science and Technology differs substantially from that other material. A brief explanation of the circumstances and full citation details for the previous article should be published along with the newly-published version, preferably as a footnote to the title.
6. If the Editor reasonably determines that the articles are the same or that the research reported is substantially the same, the corresponding (or complained-about) author, and likely the other journal, will be informed (due process). The investigation process will begin with a simple comparison of the relevant (two) texts for the simpler forms of duplication publication. A determination may be made to refer the matter to the institution or company where the research took place or any other relevant institution or agency (for example a funding agency) unless the author provides a reasonable explanation (accepted as reasonable by the Editor).
1.4. Research Fraud
1. Fabrication and falsification are serious forms of misconduct because they result in a scientific record that does not accurately reflect observed truth. Fabrication is making up research data and results and then recording or reporting them. Falsification is manipulating research materials, images, data, equipment, or processes. Falsification includes changing or omitting data or results in such a way that the research is not accurately represented. A person might falsify data to make it fit with the desired end result of a study. Images may be manipulated only for improved clarity. No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are usually acceptable as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original.
2. Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review. Therefore, all data for a specific paper should be retained for a reasonable time after publication.
1.5. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
1. The corresponding author of an article is asked to inform the Editor of the authors’ potential conflicts of interest that may influence their interpretation of data. A potential conflict of interest should be disclosed in a cover letter even when the authors are confident that their judgments in preparing the manuscript have not been influenced. The financial disclosure statement should be included in the cover letter at the time of manuscript submission. Such conflicts may be financial support or private connections to companies, political pressure from special interest groups, or academic problems. The authors should ensure that the Editor is aware of any potential conflicts of interest that may influence their interpretation of data.
2. All authors are required to sign and submit the following: “I certify that all my affiliations with or financial involvements in, within the past five (5) years and foreseeable future, any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript are completely disclosed (e.g., employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, and royalties).”
3. General acknowledgments for consultations, statistical analyses, etc. should be listed at the end of the text, including the names of the individuals involved. All financial and material support for the research and the work should be clearly and completely identified. Any conflicts of interest must be explicitly declared. This is also true even when the authors have no financial interests related to the material in the manuscript. If the authors are uncertain about what constitutes a relevant financial interest or relationship, they should contact the editorial office.
2. Research Ethics Rules for Reviewers and Editorial Board Members
2.1. Editorial Roles
Manuscripts are evaluated by editors according to the following criteria: the material is original and timely, the language is clear, the study methods are appropriate, the data are valid, the conclusions are reasonable and supported by the data, the information is important, and the topic has general electrochemical interest. Based on these basic criteria, the editors will assess a paper’s eligibility for publication.
All submissions should be treated equally and evaluated fairly based on the quality of the manuscripts and according to the established rules. No special treatment will be given based on an authors’ gender, age, affiliation, or personal connection.
The Editorial Board members, based on their judgment, should commission reviewers who are knowledgeable in the areas of research reported in the submitted manuscripts. Persons with personal ties to the authors should not be recommended as reviewers. Reviewers who are hostile towards authors should not be considered. When review results are significantly different from reviewer to reviewer, the Editorial Board can seek advice from outside experts with deep knowledge of the field for a final decision.
2.4. Confidentiality Disclosure
Until the final decision of acceptance is made, no information about the authors or the manuscript can be released.
2.5. Duty for Report
If any complaints are made about the review of a manuscript to the Editorial Board, they should be reported to the Ethics Board immediately.
3. Research Ethics Rules for Reviewers
3.1. Review Period and Decline of Review
Reviewers are required to evaluate papers commissioned by the Editorial Board within a certain period of time set for review. They need to inform the Editorial Board of the review results. If the reviewer thinks he or she will not be able to serve as a reviewer for some reasons, he or she should notify the Editorial Board of his or her inability to do the review.
Reviewers are required to review manuscripts fairly and objectively. They also should not allow any personal beliefs or personal ties to disrupt the review process. Rejecting manuscripts because they are against personal beliefs or interpretations without properly presenting sensible reasons is not acceptable. Reviewing without thoroughly reading the manuscript is also not acceptable.
Reviewers should notify the Editorial Board when they find that papers they are reviewing have been published in other journals or are under review for publication in other journals. Also, any problems concerning the papers should be addressed to the Editorial Board.
3.4. Making Reviewers’ Comments
Reviewers should respect the authors’ individualities. While expressing opinions on manuscripts in an evaluation form, the reviewers need to explain why the paper needs corrections. Reviewers’ comments should be expressed positively. Belittling or insulting authors is not allowed.
3.5. Confidentiality Disclosure
Information on assigned papers should be kept confidential by reviewers. Showing the papers to or consulting with someone else is not desirable unless the reviewers are seeking advice for review. Citing any passages in whole or part from the manuscript before publication is not allowed.