General Provisions

Research integrity is the fundamental principle for conducting scientific research. It is of vital importance for every participant in the processes of scientific research, paper writing and publication to always maintain and practice research integrity. As an important carrier for showcasing scientific and technological innovation achievements, Low-Carbon Chemistry and Chemical Engineering has always been committed to maintaining and promoting scientific research integrity and adhering to high standards of publishing ethics and morality. In order to strengthen the construction of academic integrity, standardize the processes of paper writing, editing, review and publication, and resist academic misconduct, this journal refers to the “Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China”, the “Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Academic Journal Editors” issued by the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and other relevant publishing ethics norms and provisions, and combines the actual situation of this journal to publish the publication ethics statement of Low-Carbon Chemistry and Chemical Engineering for the reference of authors, reviewers, editors, etc.

1 Author

(1) The author is obligated to indicate that the paper is an origin work (except for reviews), and should declare that there are no ideological issues in the paper, no plagiarism, forgery or tampering of data, no state sensitive information, no infringement issues related to intellectual property rights, no multiple submissions or multiple publications of the same manuscript, and no other academic misconduct. The author should also ensure that they do not submit their paper to any other journal before receiving the rejection notice from the editorial office.

(2) The author shall be responsible for the authenticity of the content of the manuscript (data, fund projects), ensure the accuracy of the description of the results, and conduct an objective and fact-based discussion of the results. The report of the original research should include necessary details or disclose relevant experimental, equipment data and other information to facilitate peers to repeat the research process and verify the research results. Any published textual viewpoints, charts, etc. used in the paper must be clearly indicated with their sources and listed in the form of references. Respect the revision suggestions of reviewers and editors. After a paper is accepted, the author should agree to grant the relevant copyright of the paper to the editorial office of this journal and provide the editorial office with a copyright authorization agreement.

(3) There should be no disputes over authorship. The authors of the paper should include all those who have made substantive contributions to the work of the paper. At the same time, all listed authors are responsible for the research results, including academic and moral responsibilities. The corresponding author should ensure the rationality of the authorship. The authorship is generally ranked in order of contribution, and is determined by the authors of the paper through mutual agreement and confirmation at the time of submission. Once a paper is accepted, the authorship and affiliation of the author cannot be changed in principle. If a change is indeed necessary, the main person in charge of the paper (the first author and the corresponding author) must submit a change application to the editorial office, stating the reasons, and it must be signed and confirmed by all listed authors.

(4) Generally, only one corresponding author is marked. If it is a collaborative research and the number of corresponding authors indeed exceeds one, the number can be appropriately increased. The additional corresponding authors are usually the academic responsible persons of different research institutions or different research groups involved in the collaborative research.

(5) When the institution or unit to which the author belongs is inconsistent with the one that selected the research topic, designed the research plan, conducted the research work, and provided the research conditions (such as a graduate student leaving the training unit, a visiting scholar, etc.), the institution that provided the research conditions and completed the research work shall be the preferred affiliation.

(6) When submitting a manuscript, the author should declare whether there are any conflicts of interest. One should proactively or upon invitation provide an explanation or evidence of the relevance of the paper to similar manuscripts that have been published or are under review by oneself or others. If necessary, copies of the relevant manuscripts should be provided. Efforts should be made to avoid potential competition for interests arising from the publication of research results, such as clearly marking the source of funding for the research results.

(7) The author should clearly indicate in the manuscript the chemical substances, equipment and operation procedures that may cause harm and are used in the research work. If significant errors or inaccurate expressions are found in a published article, the author is obligated to promptly notify the editorial office and cooperate by withdrawing the manuscript or publishing a correction statement.

(8) In addition to language correction and typesetting, the author is required to disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence and verify the generated content. Automated tools cannot be listed as authors, and artificial intelligence cannot be cited as a source of information.

2 Reviewers

The reviewers include members of editorial board who participated in the review, chief editor, associate editor, peer reviewers, editors, etc.

(1) Reviewers should adhere to the principles of fairness, impartiality, confidentiality and timeliness to make responsible review opinions on the manuscripts. Reviewers should maintain academic integrity and should not lower academic and moral standards under the influence of commercial interests. They must not develop prejudice or discrimination against authors based on their institutions, regions, qualifications, ethnicity, etc., must not disclose authors' research content, and must not plagiarize, appropriate or copy authors' research results and ideas.

(2) Reviewers should avoid manuscripts for which they have an interest relationship. When there is an interest relationship with the author of the paper submitted for review by the editorial office (such as teacher-student relationship, alumni relationship, colleague relationship, competitive relationship, etc.), in order to ensure the fairness of the paper review, the relevant situation should be promptly reported to the editorial office, and the editorial office will decide whether to recuse the author.

(3) Reviewers should review the manuscripts in a timely manner as agreed. If reviewers are unable to handle the task or fail to complete the review within the agreed time and return the review comments, reviewers should withdraw the review as soon as possible, or recommend someone else for review, or inform the editor of the possible delay time and reasons. 

(4) If reviewers discover any suspected academic misconduct during the paper review process, they should promptly inform editorial office for handling to prevent the publication of academic misconduct manuscripts.

(5) Peer reviewers are not allowed to use AI for review or to write review opinions.

3 Editors

(1) Editors should strictly abide by relevant national laws and regulations, observe academic publishing ethics and norms, and safeguard research integrity. All submissions of manuscripts should be handled fairly, impartially and promptly to ensure that the edited manuscripts are published on time and of high quality.

(2) Editors should abide by the principle of confidentiality. On the one hand, it is necessary to strictly keep the information of reviewers confidential to ensure that the identities of reviewers and other relevant personnel in the editorial office are protected during the review process, and to guarantee the authenticity of the review process records. On the other hand, the author’s research content must be kept confidential. It is strictly prohibited to plagiarize, occupy, copy the author’s research results and ideas or disclose any information about the paper to others.

(3) Editors should select manuscripts impartially and must not interfere with peer review driven by profit. They should strive to ensure the independent review by external reviewers to guarantee the fairness and impartiality of peer review.

(4) The editors should verify the authenticity of the information of the external reviewers recommended by the authors, and decide whether to adopt the recommended reviewers based on their research direction and expertise, as well as whether there are any conflicts of interest with the authors. If an author requests to avoid having a certain expert review his or her paper and this request is reasonable, the editors should adopt it.

(5) Editors should provide authors with detailed revision suggestions or reasons for rejection as much as possible. Academic debate should be encouraged. Different opinions of authors on the reviewers’ comments and authors’ appeals should be treated with caution. Collective discussions can be organized or review experts can be invited to re-examine.

(6) Editors should respect the author’s viewpoints and writing style. Any key modifications to the paper involving academic viewpoints, etc., should be approved by the author.

(7) Editors have the obligation to investigate and communicate about academic misconduct. Effective responses and investigations must be taken against complaints of suspected academic misconduct in submitted manuscripts or published manuscripts. If necessary, the results of corrections, clarifications, withdrawals and other handling measures should be made public in a timely manner. Editors have the responsibility to hold authors and others accountable for improper behavior.

(8) Editors are not allowed to use AI to write review opinions. The conventional automated tools used by editors must be disclosed and tested. The automated tools used by editors need to be subject to manual supervision.