Academic integrity is the cornerstone of scientific research and academic exchange. The Chinese government and relevant departments attach great importance to the prevention and control of research misconduct, and have introduced a series of policy documents. These include the "Measures for Handling Research Misconduct in the Implementation of the National Science and Technology Plan (Trial)" (Ministry of Science and Technology Order No. 11) issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology in 2006, the "Several Opinions on Further Strengthening the Construction of Research Integrity" issued by the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the General Office of the State Council in 2018, and the "Academic Publishing Standards - Definition of Academic Misconduct in Journals (CY/T 174-2019)" released by the National Press and Publication Administration in 2019. To address various potential academic misconduct and maintain a fair and ethical research environment, the editorial department of Southern Power System Technology has established academic integrity guidelines below.

1.Definition of Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct includes misconduct by authors, misconduct by peer reviewers, and misconduct by editors.

1.1 Academic Misconduct by Authors

1.1.1 Subdivision and Definition of Academic Misconduct

Subdividing and defining academic misconduct is a prerequisite for precise prevention, control, and handling. According to different natures and degrees, academic misconduct should be categorized into three types: academic misconduct, academic impropriety, and academic inappropriateness. The specific definitions are as follows:

(1)Academic misconduct refers to any obvious and intentional actions by the subject in scientific research, result publication, and academic exchange that violate the norms and conventions of the scientific community. Academic misconduct mainly includes plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, multiple submissions, duplicate or split publication of the same result, improper paper authorship, and paid or unpaid ghostwriting (publishing). The above academic misconduct is unforgivable and subject to punishment.

(2)Academic impropriety, although not a typical academic misconduct, is clearly an intentional act that is not encouraged and should be warned against and eliminated in the future.

(3)Academic inappropriateness, though not rigorous or lacking in academic style, has not yet touched the bottom line of academic ethics and is a borderline behavior that is not intentionally committed and should be avoided in the future.

1.1.2 Examples of Academic Misconduct and Borderline Behaviors

(1)Typical examples of academic misconduct: submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously or successively; the similarity ratio of the manuscript exceeds the established standard without reasonable explanation; duplicate publication of the same scientific research result; duplicate publication of the same illustrations, tables, and key data; the conclusion part of the manuscript is similar to articles already published by others; commissioning others to write papers or writing (publishing) papers for others; adding or deleting authors, or changing the author order without reasonable cause; using others' data in the results and discussion sections without citation.

(2)Typical examples of academic impropriety: improper handling of the relationship between academic papers and one's own dissertation (inappropriate citation); improper handling of the relationship between personal achievements and team series achievements (inappropriate citation); submitting papers without the consent of the supervisor or team members; recommending reviewers with competing interest to the editorial department when submitting papers.

(3)Typical examples of academic inappropriateness: resubmitting to the same journal without modification after rejection; submitting dissertations directly to journals without adjustment; submitting conference papers directly to journals without adjustment; submitting direct translations of one's own foreign language papers to Chinese journals; not citing others' published methods, viewpoints, data, etc.; citing one's own previous series of achievements without citation; using others' content in the description of materials, methods, or models without citation; using others' data in the results and discussion sections without citation.

1.2 Academic Misconduct by Peer Reviewers

Breaking academic ethics, interfering with review process, violating conflict of interest regulations, violating confidential requirements, plagiarizing manuscript content, seeking improper benefits, and other academic misconduct.

1.3 Academic Misconduct by Editors

Proposing editorial opinions against academic and ethical standards, violating conflict of interest regulations, violating confidentiality requirements, plagiarizing manuscript content, interfering with reviews, seeking improper benefits, and other academic misconduct.

2.Handling of Academic Misconduct and Borderline Behaviors

The levels of academic dishonesty vary among academic misconduct, academic impropriety, and academic inappropriateness, thus requiring differentiated handling methods.

2.1 Handling of Academic Misconduct

2.1.1 Handling of Unpublished Manuscripts

The editorial department conducts two rounds of academic misconduct detection on all papers; before peer review and before formal publication. If there is concrete evidence of academic misconduct, the editorial board will return the manuscript to the author and notify them or their research team or institution of the misconduct.

2.1.2 Handling of Published Manuscripts

Manuscripts suspected of academic misconduct, discovered after online first publication, should be retracted from the online first publication database and the authors should be notified. The reason for retraction should be explained to the authors and copied to the authors’ affiliations. The authors should also be placed on a watch list and not have their submissions accepted for at least two years. If necessary, the suspected academic misconduct manuscript can be announced on the journal's official website.

Manuscripts suspected of academic misconduct discovered after formal publishing should be retracted from all databases and the authors should be notified. A retraction statement should be published in the journal's supplement. The reason for retraction should be explained to the author and copied to the authors’ affiliations. The authors should also be placed on a watch list and not have their submissions accepted for at least two years. If necessary, the suspected academic misconduct manuscript can be announced on the journal's official website.

2.2 Handling of Academic Improprieties

Although academic impropriety does not belong to typical academic misconduct, it is intentional and on the margin of academic misconduct. For manuscripts suspected of academic impropriety, a written warning can be issued to the authors, and they can be required to submit a statement explaining the situation and promising that similar incidents will not occur in the future.

2.3 Handling of Academic Inappropriateness

Academic inappropriateness has not touched the bottom line of academic ethics. Although it lacks academic style, it is usually an unintentional mistake made by the authors due to a lack of understanding of standards or regulations. Therefore, the authors can be formally (in writing) reminded that such behavior is on the margin of academic misconduct and should be avoided in the future, but no written or oral warning is given.

3.Strengthening the Team of Editors and Reviewers, Adhering to Professional Ethics

The journal focuses on expert-based publishing and strengthens the peer review process. The journal's editorial board and peer reviewers strictly review the academic quality of manuscripts and treat all manuscripts objectively and fairly. If it is found that published papers have issues such as fraud, plagiarism, or serious errors, the journal will publish retraction statements, correction notices, or public apology letters in the shortest possible time, and notify the databases to retract the articles in question. If it is found that reviewers are making use of the manuscripts under review for personal purpose or plagiarizing the content, they will be disciplined according to the case, ranging from warnings to a lifetime ban on reviewing or even public disclosure.