Publication Ethics Statement

All content published in the journal Advances in Mathematics (China) (including print and electronic versions) and on this website, including articles, images, photographs, charts, layout designs, column names, and directory classifications, is copyrighted and owned by the copyright holder or relevant rights holder, and is protected by Chinese law and international conventions to which China is a signatory.

To further enhance the quality of the journal and foster an excellent academic publishing atmosphere, Advances in Mathematics (China) adheres to internationally recognized publishing ethical standards. In accordance with guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and considering the specific circumstances of the journal, we have formulated this publication ethics statement. We urge all authors, editors, and reviewers to strictly adhere to these standards.

1. Misconduct in Manuscript Writing and Submission

(1) Fabrication of Data: Falsifying, manipulating, or tampering with research data or other research findings.

(2) Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement: Appropriating all or part of another person’s published or unpublished work (including text, figures, tables, data, etc.) as one’s own, whether verbatim or with minor modifications; publishing collaborative research results as independent work.

(3) Duplicate Publication. Submitting a manuscript that has already been published, whether by oneself or as a co-author, without providing any explanation, either in its original form or with minor modifications or adjustments, constitutes duplicate publication.

(4) Simultaneous Submission: Submitting the same paper to multiple journals concurrently, or resubmitting a previously published paper without acknowledgment within the stipulated review or response period.

2. Misconduct in Reference Citation and Annotation

(1) Improper Citation: Using or referencing another person’s or one’s own published views, arguments, data, charts, formulas, etc., without proper attribution; mixing others’ or one’s own published arguments and evidence with one’s own without clear differentiation; using unpublished work or translated excerpts from foreign materials without proper citation.

(2) Fictitious Citation: Falsely citing references without actually referring to the cited literature.

(3) Unverified Secondary Citation: Quoting or referencing literature without having read or verified the original source, relying solely on citations from other documents.

(4) Incomplete Citation: Deliberately omitting important research findings or literature relevant to the paper due to academic disagreements or language barriers, or selectively quoting from others’ research out of context.

3. Misconduct in Authorship Attribution

(1) Gift or Ghost Authorship: Including individuals as authors who have made no substantive contributions to the work, or listing individuals as authors without their informed consent.

4. Author Guidelines:

(1) Originality: Submitted manuscripts must be original works and must not have been previously published elsewhere, nor should key content have been previously published. Multiple submissions of the same work are prohibited. Authors must avoid plagiarism and clearly cite referenced materials. Data presented in the manuscript must be truthful, reliable, and free of deception. Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in any form is strictly prohibited.

(2) Adherence to Authorship Norms: All authors listed on a manuscript must review and agree to the publication of the work, and bear responsibility for the content. The primary author must seek input and approval from all co-authors regarding the manuscript’s content. Each listed author must have made a substantive academic contribution to the work, and honorary authorship without substantial contribution is not permitted.

(3) Prohibition of Third-Party Services: Researchers must personally complete manuscript writing tasks and refrain from using third-party writing services. Manuscripts must not be submitted through third-party representatives. Researchers are expected to engage directly in the submission process and respond to reviewer comments without third-party intervention. Manuscripts must not be altered by third parties. If authors use language editing services, these services should only refine language expression based on the author’s original manuscript, without modifying the substantive content of the paper.

(4) Funding Disclosure: Authors should disclose any financial support or assistance received for the research presented in the manuscript. Acknowledgments should clearly recognize any external contributions that supported or influenced the publication of the manuscript.

(5) Integrity of Peer Review: Researchers must provide accurate and reliable information when recommending peer reviewers for their manuscript. Fabricating information related to peer reviewers is strictly prohibited during the peer review process.

5. Reviewer Guidelines:

(1) Objective and Fair Evaluation: Reviewers should provide objective and fair assessments of manuscripts, evaluating their academic quality and whether they meet publication standards clearly and definitively. Avoid making superficial or ambiguous review comments.

(2) Respect for Academic Perspectives: Respect the existence of diverse academic viewpoints and refrain from making disrespectful, derogatory, or biased comments. If serious academic misconduct is identified in a manuscript, it should be reported truthfully to the editorial board.

(3) Disclosure of Familiarity and Conflicts: Reviewers should inform the editorial board if they are unfamiliar with the subject matter or related research area. Reviewers may opt out of reviewing manuscripts that pose conflicts of interest or hinder their ability to provide objective evaluations.

(4) Timely Review Completion: Reviewers should complete manuscript reviews within the specified timeframe. In case of delays due to objective reasons, reviewers must promptly notify the editorial board.

6. Editor Guidelines:

(1) Adherence to Double-Blind Review: Editors should promptly handle manuscript submissions while adhering to the principles of double-blind peer review.

(2) Ensuring Fair Review Process: Editors are responsible for ensuring the fairness of the review process and minimizing biases. Efforts should be made to promptly arrange peer reviews and publication of received manuscripts, especially those reporting significant findings.

(3) Timely Publication: Editors must ensure that the journal is published on schedule, featuring novel, reliable content, and prioritizing cutting-edge research and hot topics.

(4) Conducting Academic Misconduct Checks: Editors should diligently screen submissions for academic misconduct, preventing the publication of fraudulent, plagiarized, duplicate submissions, or improperly attributed manuscripts.

(5) Establishing and Maintaining a Competent Reviewer Database: Editors should develop and maintain a suitable and competent database of reviewers, objectively supervising the performance of reviewers and editorial board members, and recording their review quality and adherence to deadlines.

(6) Providing Timely Feedback to Authors: Editors should promptly provide authors with expert review feedback, support academic discussions, facilitate communication between authors and reviewers, maintain confidentiality of reviewer identities in blind reviews, and refrain from using disrespectful or defamatory review comments.

(7) Authority to Accept or Reject Manuscripts: Editors have the authority to accept or reject manuscripts based on their importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal. Authors should be allowed to appeal editorial decisions.

7. Retraction and Correction:

(1) Retraction Considerations: Editors should consider retracting a publication under the following circumstances: there is clear evidence that improper conduct (such as data fabrication) or honest errors (e.g., misjudgment or experimental errors) have rendered the research results unreliable; the research results have previously been published elsewhere without appropriate cross-referencing, permission, or justification (i.e., duplicate publication); plagiarism is evident; or the research constitutes unethical conduct.

(2) Retraction Notice: Retraction notices should be linked to all electronic versions, clearly identifying the retracted article (e.g., including the title and authors in the retraction title), and should be promptly announced to minimize the harmful impact of misleading publications.

(3) Correction Considerations: Editors should consider issuing corrections under the following circumstances: a small portion of a reliable publication is proven to be misleading (especially due to honest errors); or the author/contributor list is incorrect (i.e., qualified authors are omitted or unqualified individuals are included).