Energy Storage Science and Technology is committed to meeting and upholding standard ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. We follow the requirements and guidelines given by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and strictly in order to meet these standards. The following issues are highlighted for authors, editors and reviewers. For more details, please refer to the web of the Publication Ethics Committee (COPE)(http://www.publicationethics.org/).
Authors’ responsibilities
1. To confirm/assert that the manuscript being submitted is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
2. To confirm that all the work in the submitted manuscript is original (no plagiarism), and to acknowledge and cite any content reproduced from other sources. To obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources.
Important note: the journal will use software to screen for plagiarism.
3. No data should be fabricated or manipulated (including images) in order to fit the conclusion/ hypothesis.
4. To maintain accurate records of data associated with their submitted manuscript, and to supply or provide access to such data on reasonable request.
5. To ensure that any studies involving human and/or animal subjects conform to national, local and institutional laws and requirements; and to confirm that approval has been sought and obtained where appropriate. Authors should obtain clear, explicit permission from human subjects and always respect their privacy.
6. Consent to submit must be received from all co-authors before the work is finally submitted; and the corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that this agreement has been reached beforehand.
7. Authors whose names appear on the submission have all made sufficient contributions to the scientific work and therefore share collective responsibility and accountability for the results.
Reviewers’ responsibilities
1. Reviewers are expected to contribute to the decision-making process (whether to accept or decline an article) and assist in improving the quality of the papers to be published, in an objective and timely manner.
2. Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not retain and/or copy the manuscripts or discuss them with others.
3. Any relevancy or overlaps between published papers and the manuscript under consideration should be raised to editors.
4. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts with conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, competitive or collaborative), or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, and/or institutions connected to the manuscripts.
Editors’ responsibilities
1. To handle submissions in a balanced, objective and fair way, regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit.
2. To proceed with reason when complaints of an ethical or conflictual nature arise. To give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved. Any documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.
Ethical responsibilities
Treat the manuscript as confidential: The manuscript (or its existence) should not be shown to or discussed with others, except when specific scientific advice may be sought; in that event the editor must be informed. Information acquired by a reviewer from such a paper is not available for disclosure or citation until the paper is published
To ensure that all unpublished data, information and discussion in a submitted article remain confidential and not to use reported work in unpublished, submitted articles for their own research.
To comment the manuscript objectively and timely: Reviewers should not make personal criticism in their reviews.
To respect the intellectual independence of authors.
To inform the editor of any similarity between the submitted manuscript and another either published or under consideration.
To alert the editor if a manuscript contains or appears to contain plagiarised material, falsified or manipulated data.
To inform the editor if there is a conflict of interest: reviewers should not review manuscripts authored or co-authored by a person whom has a close personal or professional relationship with the reviewer.
For further guidance on avoiding potential conflicts of interest during the peer review process, see the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.