To enhance the academic integrity of Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and Guidance, standardize the process of paper writing, submission, review, editing and publication, and resist academic misconduct, we have formulated ethical codes for authors, review experts and editors of Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and Guidance based on the relevant contents of domestic and foreign publishing ethics such as the “Copyright Law” and the “Ethical Code for Scientific Journals”, in combination with the actual situations.
I. Publishing Ethics for Authors
1. Before submitting to the Journal, authors must have their papers reviewed for confidentiality by the confidentiality department of their respective institutions and submit the "Confidentiality Review Certificate". They must also submit the "Copyright Transfer Agreement for the Paper" signed by all authors, certifying the authenticity of the paper content (data, author information), that the paper has not been submitted elsewhere, does not involve confidentiality issues, and there are no disputes regarding authorship, etc.
2. Authors are responsible for the authenticity of their papers, ensuring the accuracy of the description of their achievements and objectively discussing the results in a matter-of-fact manner. When necessary, they have the responsibility to cooperate with the Editorial Department to provide original supporting materials.
3. The signatory author(s) must be the substantial contributor(s) to the paper. The order of authorship, in principle, should be arranged according to the degree of contribution and be agreed upon by all the signatory authors before submission. Generally, the authorship and the affiliated institutions cannot be changed after submission. If some change is indeed necessary, the main responsible person of the paper (the first author or the corresponding author) should submit a written application for the change to the Editorial Department, stating the reasons, and have it signed by all the signatory authors (including those whose names are to be changed). No unauthorized changes should be made in the revised paper.
4. Before submitting the paper, author(s) should check the text similarity ratio of the paper. The Journal refuses paper with a text similarity ratio exceeding 20%. We use the "Academic Misconduct Literature Detection System (AMLC)" (from China National Knowledge Infrastructure, namely CNKI) to conduct two rounds of plagiarism check during the initial review and before publication. If any academic misconduct such as multiple submissions or plagiarism is detected, the paper will be rejected.
II. Publication Ethics for Review Experts
1. Review experts should adhere to the principles of fairness, impartiality, confidentiality and timeliness, and provide responsible review opinions on the paper. The experts must not have prejudice or discrimination against the author's country, institution, race, religion, qualifications, gender, etc., and must not disclose the authors' research content.
2. When there is a conflict of interest between the review experts and the author(s) (such as kinship, teacher-student relationship, alumni relationship, colleague relationship, or competitive relationship), to ensure the fairness, the review experts should promptly declare the conflict of interest to the Editorial Department, and the Editorial Department will decide whether to avoid it.
3. When the review experts find that the research conducted by the author(s) is similar to their own, they must not take advantage of their position as reviewers to suppress or belittle the paper.
4. Review experts should review the paper in a timely manner as agreed. If the review experts are unable to do so on time, they should promptly submit a rejection of the review and inform the Editorial Department to reassign review experts. Review experts are not allowed to entrust their students, colleagues, or others to review on their behalf without authorization.
5. When the peer review experts encounter the paper that they have previously reviewed, they have the obligation to inform the Editorial Department and provide a review opinion in accordance with the Journal's inclusion criteria.
III. Publishing Ethics for Editors
1. Editors should handle each paper fairly, impartially and promptly, and make decisions to accept or reject based on the importance, originality, scientificity, timeliness, readability, authenticity of research and relevance to the Journal of the paper.
2. Editors should abide by the principle of confidentiality. On the one hand, they must strictly keep the information of review experts; on the other hand, they should also keep the research content of authors confidential.
3. Editors must not be driven by interests to interfere with peer review experts, and should strive to ensure the independent evaluation by peer experts to guarantee the fairness and impartiality of the peer review process.
4. When selecting peer review experts for paper, editors should try to avoid choosing experts from the same institution as the author(s) and must not select any of the author(s) as review experts.
5. When there is a conflict of interest between the editors and the author(s) (such as kinship, teacher-student relationship, alumni relationship, or competitive relationship), the editors should avoid handling the paper.
6. Editors should handle authors' appeals with caution and organize collective discussion or invite review experts to reconsider.
7. Editors have the responsibility to prevent academic misconduct such as multiple submissions and duplicate publications. They should check for plagiarism and review the paper.
8. It is the obligation of the editors to remind the author(s) of the possible copyright and intellectual property issues that may arise after changing the authorship, affiliation and their sequence.
9. Editors should provide author(s) with as detailed revision suggestions or rejection reasons as possible.
10. The editors should objectively state the situation of paper review.
11. Editors should respect the authors' viewpoints and writing style. Any key revision involving academic viewpoints and so on should be made with the authors' consent.