Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Petroleum Science Bulletin follows accepted publishing ethics and strongly opposes any form of academic misconduct. Authors, reviewers, and editors of this journal shall abide by the following ethical standards.
1 Publication ethics for authors
Authors shall uphold the academic integrity, refrain from any misconduct, and comply with journal policies.
1) Authors shall ensure the authenticity and originality of submitted works. The manuscript must not have been published previously in any language, and all data must be genuine, without fabrication or falsification.
2) Multiple submissions or duplicate publication of the same research is prohibited. Authors may not submit the manuscript to another journal before receiving a formal rejection notice from the editorial office. If withdrawal is necessary, the editorial office shall be notified promptly.
3) All published works that influenced the research should be properly cited. Any form of plagiarism, including direct copying, paraphrasing substantial content without attribution, or misappropriating others' findings, is considered as academic misconduct. Copyrighted materials requiring permission should not be used without authorization.
4) Authors guarantee that the manuscript does not disclose state secrets or infringe upon copyright. The authors assume full responsibility for any violations.
5) Authors should resolve any disputes over authorship prior to submission. Co-authors shall have made substantial contributions to the research conception, experimental design, data analysis, or manuscript writing. Those involved only in non-core tasks may be acknowledged. The corresponding author shall ensure all co-authors review and approve the final version for publication.
6) Funding sources for the research shall be disclosed upon submission. Any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., financial or professional ties) must be declared to the editorial office in advance.
7) If significant errors are identified in a published paper, authors are obligated to notify the editorial office immediately and cooperate in issuing retractions or corrections notice.
2 Publication ethics for reviewers
Peer review is a critical process to ensure academic quality. Reviewers shall uphold principles of fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality throughout the evaluation process, and avoid evaluating manuscripts with which they have a conflict of interest.
1) Reviewers shall evaluate manuscripts rigorously and objectively, focusing on scientific merit, originality, and academic value. Review comments shall specifically identify the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, and provide constructive revision suggestions to assist editorial decision-making and to help authors improve their work. Vague or subjective assessments should be avoided.
2) If reviewers identify any academic misconduct, including duplicate submission, suspected plagiarism, or data fabrication, they shall promptly report it to the editorial office to maintain academic integrity.
3) To ensure independent and impartial review, reviewers shall report to the editorial office any competitive, collaborative, or financial relationships with authors (such as mentor-student relationships, same affiliations, or shared financial interests) and should withdraw from the review process in such cases.
4) Reviewers shall maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript s content and data. The information contained in reviewed manuscripts should not be used for personal research or disclosed to others.
3 Publication ethics for editors
Editors shall adhere to academic publishing ethics and standards, uphold scholarly environment, and handle manuscripts with fairness and objectivity.
1) Editors shall handle manuscripts promptly and oversee all editorial processes to ensure an efficient and transparent peer review, editing, and publication workflow.
2) A rigorous preliminary review system should be implemented. Editors shall use professional software to check the originality of submissions and promptly reject manuscripts that fail to meet the journal s standards.
3) The double-blind peer review system shall be strictly enforced to guarantee fairness in manuscript evaluation. The confidentiality of both authors and reviewers identities should be maintained at all times.
4) Editorial decisions shall be based on feedback from at least two reviewers under the double-blind review process. Editors should respect authors research contributions and reviewers opinions, fostering academic debate. For disputed manuscripts, the editor-in-chief and editorial board shall conduct a final review.
5) During the editing and publishing process, editors shall comply with publishing standards to ensure high-quality manuscripts are published on schedule.
6) Appeals should be permitted, and editors shall maintain timely communication with authors and reviewers.
Pubdate: 2025-07-01
Viewed:
150
Author Login
Peer Review
Office Work
Editor-in-Chief