Ethical Guidelines

Ethical Guidelines

Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

Instrumentation is an international, peer-reviewed journal published by the China Instrument and Control Society (CIS). The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and research integrity.

These ethical guidelines apply to all parties involved in the publication process: authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher. Where appropriate, the journal’s practices are informed by recommendations from organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

1. Editorial Responsibilities

1.1 Editorial independence and fairness

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board of Instrumentation make publication decisions based solely on the scientific merit, originality, clarity, and relevance of the submitted work to the journal’s scope, regardless of the authors’ gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship, political beliefs, institutional affiliation, or funding sources.

Editors must not be influenced by commercial interests, institutional pressure, or personal relationships. Decisions to accept, revise, or reject a manuscript are based on the reviewers’ reports, the editorial assessment, and applicable legal and ethical standards.

1.2 Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must treat all submitted manuscripts and related materials as confidential documents. Manuscripts may not be shared beyond those directly involved in the evaluation process (e.g., invited reviewers, editorial board members) without the explicit permission of the authors.

1.3 Handling conflicts of interest

Editors must recuse themselves from handling any manuscript in which they have a potential conflict of interest, including:

  • Recent collaboration with the authors

  • Shared institutional affiliation

  • Personal, financial, or professional relationships that may affect impartial judgment

In such cases, the manuscript will be reassigned to another editor without conflicting interests.

1.4 Response to concerns and complaints

Editors are responsible for responding to credible concerns about possible ethical issues in submitted or published work.

When concerns are raised, the editorial office will:

  1. Acknowledge receipt of the concern.

  2. Conduct an initial assessment and, where necessary, contact the authors for clarification.

  3. Consult relevant documentation, institutional bodies, or independent experts if required.

  4. Take appropriate editorial action (e.g., correction, expression of concern, retraction) if misconduct or serious error is confirmed.

2. Peer Review Process

2.1 General principles

Instrumentation uses single-blind or double-blind peer review (as stated on the journal website), where manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent experts in the relevant field.

The goals of peer review are to:

  • Assess the scientific rigor, originality, and significance of the work

  • Improve the clarity and completeness of reporting

  • Help editors make informed decisions

2.2 Reviewer selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject-area expertise

  • Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or their institutions

  • Ability to provide an objective and timely review

Editors may also consider diversity in geography, career stage, and perspectives when selecting reviewers.

2.3 Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers must not:

  • Share or discuss the manuscript with others without permission from the editor

  • Use information obtained through peer review for personal advantage or to disadvantage others

2.4 Reviewer conduct and conflicts of interest

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide constructive, evidence-based, and respectful comments

  • Identify relevant published work that has not been cited

  • Inform the editor if they feel unqualified to review or cannot meet the deadline

Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest, including:

  • Personal or professional relationships with the authors

  • Financial interests related to the work

  • Competitive or collaborative relationships that could bias their judgment

If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

3. Authors’ Responsibilities

3.1 Originality and plagiarism

Authors must submit only original work that:

  • Has not been published previously, in whole or in part, in any language, except as an abstract, conference proceeding, or preprint clearly disclosed at submission

  • Is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal

Plagiarism in any form, including self-plagiarism, uncredited use of others’ ideas, text, figures, or data, is unacceptable. The journal may use plagiarism-detection tools during the evaluation process. Suspected plagiarism will be investigated and may lead to rejection or retraction.

3.2 Data integrity and image manipulation

Authors are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data presented in their work. They should:

  • Ensure that data are collected and analyzed using appropriate methods

  • Present results honestly and transparently, without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data selection

  • Avoid inappropriate image manipulation (e.g., enhancing, obscuring, moving, or removing features) that could mislead readers

Editors may request original data, images, or laboratory records to verify results.

3.3 Authorship and contributorship

Authorship should reflect substantial contributions to the work. Each listed author should meet all of the following criteria:

  1. Significant contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation;

  2. Participation in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content;

  3. Approval of the final version to be published;

  4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Contributors who do not meet all criteria should be acknowledged in an “Acknowledgments” section with a description of their role (e.g., technical assistance, language editing, funding administration).

All authors must agree on the order of authorship before submission. Requests for changes in authorship (addition, removal, or rearrangement) after submission or publication will require written justification and consent from all authors.

3.4 Transparency, funding, and conflicts of interest

Authors must:

  • Disclose all sources of financial support, including grant numbers and funding agencies

  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial) that could be perceived to influence the work, such as:

    • Employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or honoraria

    • Personal relationships or academic competition

    • Intellectual property interests

These declarations should be included in a dedicated “Conflicts of Interest” and “Funding” section in the manuscript.

3.5 Research involving humans, animals, or sensitive data

For research involving human participants, human data, or biological samples, authors must:

  • Confirm that the study was approved by an appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB), with the approval number stated in the manuscript

  • State that written informed consent was obtained from participants, or justify why consent was not required according to local regulations

  • Protect participants’ privacy by anonymizing personal data and avoiding identifying information unless explicit consent for publication has been obtained

For animal studies, authors must:

  • Confirm compliance with institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of animals

  • Describe measures taken to minimize pain, suffering, and the number of animals used

For clinical trials and certain types of interventional studies, trial registration in a recognized registry is strongly encouraged and may be required by the journal.

3.6 Data availability and reproducibility

Authors are encouraged to make underlying data, codes, and materials available to readers where feasible, either:

  • In recognized data repositories, with persistent identifiers (e.g., DOIs), or

  • As supplementary material accompanying the article

The manuscript should include a Data Availability Statement describing how and where the data can be accessed or explaining why data cannot be shared (e.g., privacy, legal restrictions).

3.7 Use of generative AI and automated tools

Authors must:

  • Use generative AI or automated tools (e.g., for language polishing, image generation, or code suggestions) responsibly and transparently

  • Not list AI tools as authors

  • Clearly describe any significant use of AI tools in the Methods or Acknowledgments section, especially where AI contributed to data analysis, figure creation, or text drafting

Authors remain fully responsible for the content and must verify the accuracy of any AI-generated or AI-assisted output.

4. Handling Allegations of Misconduct

4.1 General principles

The journal takes all allegations of research or publication misconduct seriously, including:

  • Plagiarism or self-plagiarism

  • Data fabrication or falsification

  • Unethical research practices

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

  • Guest, gift, or ghost authorship

  • Peer review manipulation

Investigations will be conducted with fairness, confidentiality, and respect for all parties.

4.2 Investigation process

When potential misconduct is reported:

  1. The editorial office will conduct an initial assessment.

  2. Authors will be contacted and asked to respond to the concerns, and to provide supporting documentation where appropriate.

  3. If necessary, the journal may consult the authors’ institutions, funders, or other relevant bodies.

  4. The journal will follow COPE flowcharts and best practices in complex cases.

If misconduct is confirmed, the journal may:

  • Reject the manuscript or withdraw it from review

  • Publish a correction, erratum, or expression of concern

  • Retract the article, with a clear notice explaining the reason

  • Notify relevant institutions and funders

5. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

5.1 Corrections and errata

If an error is discovered in a published article that does not undermine the overall findings:

  • The authors or readers should notify the editorial office as soon as possible

  • A correction or erratum will be published, clearly linked to the original article, and the online version will be updated with a note indicating the change

5.2 Retractions

Articles may be retracted in cases such as:

  • Confirmed research or publication misconduct

  • Serious methodological or analytical errors that invalidate the main conclusions

  • Duplicate publication without proper disclosure

Retraction notices will:

  • Be freely accessible

  • Clearly state the reasons for retraction

  • Remain linked to the original article, which will be watermarked or labeled as “Retracted”

5.3 Expressions of concern

If concerns about a publication cannot be resolved in a timely manner or evidence is inconclusive, the journal may issue an expression of concern to alert readers while investigations continue.

6. Publisher’s Role

The China Instrument and Control Society (CIS), as the publisher of Instrumentation, supports the editors in:

  • Maintaining editorial independence

  • Upholding ethical standards and best practices

  • Ensuring the long-term preservation and accessibility of published content

  • Addressing allegations of misconduct when they arise

Commercial or sponsorship considerations do not affect editorial decisions.

7. Appeals and Complaints

Authors, reviewers, or readers who wish to appeal an editorial decision or raise a complaint about ethical issues, editorial processes, or peer review conduct may contact the editorial office via the contact information provided on the journal website.

Appeals and complaints will be:

  • Acknowledged in a timely manner

  • Reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated senior editor not involved in the original decision

  • Addressed using transparent, consistent procedures