出版道德声明
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
《中国造纸》遵循公认的出版道德规范，参与出版本刊的编辑、编委、审稿人、作者和出版者必须遵循出版道德规范。
本刊坚决反对任何形式的抄袭。向本刊投稿的作者须确认稿件内容的原创性；并保证投稿论文没有以任何语言完全或部分发表在其他文章中，也没有为出版目的而在任何地方接受评审。
本刊编辑、作者和审稿人应履行下列职责，并遵循《中国造纸》的相关出版规定和要求。
一、编辑的职责
1. 学术不端检测：作者在本刊网上投稿系统中注册上传稿件后，编辑需对稿件进行学术不端检测，通过检测的稿件，需给作者发送收稿通知。
2. 稿件评审：通过学术不端检测的稿件将转发给审稿人进行双盲同行评审，审稿人需就文稿的接受、拒绝或修改提出具体建议。编辑部将接受无异议发表或异议得到有效协商认可发表的稿件，保证审稿结果的客观性和公正性。编辑必须确保本刊所接受的每一篇文稿均经过知识内容审查。
3. 保密约定：编辑部具有对审稿专家姓名及出版前的稿件流程严格保密的权力和义务。作者在投稿时可提出对某一或某些同行专家回避审稿的要求，编辑部在送审时会酌情予以考虑。
4. 学术道德监管：编辑委员会全体成员及编辑部全体编辑人员具有监管本刊学术道德规范的责任，保证本刊稿件非商业营利性、论点真实可靠、论据具有高度科学性等一贯高标准、严要求的学术道德作风。
5. 保持刊物的科学性：在稿件付印之前，编辑部需对录用稿件进行编辑、加工，必要时需与作者针对稿件中的规范性等问题进行沟通。发现本刊已出版论文的重大问题，经编辑委员会全体成员、编辑部全体编辑人员及审稿专家的一致讨论，根据相关人员达成的共识，必要时发表对已出版物进行更正、澄清、撤销及道歉的声明。
二、审稿人的职责
1. 保密性原则：遵从本刊同行专家匿名评审的规则，未经主编任何授权，稿件审稿相关信息不得公开或与他人讨论，保证审稿过程的保密性。
2. 客观性标准：审稿人对文稿的评审必须做到客观公正，论据充分、论点明确，评论客观、公正，不得有针对作者本人的评价和批评。
3. 避免与稿件的冲突或关系：审稿人应与该研究、作者和/或该研究资助者没有任何利益冲突或关系。
4. 引文确认：审稿专家应对稿件引用的参考文献给予具体评价，确保稿件引文的正确性和完整性。发现稿件中任何与其他出版物的大量相似或重叠之处，审稿人应及时与编辑部进行沟通。
5. 审稿的及时性：审稿人应保持审稿结果的高效性，尽早给出审稿结论。如果审稿人不能确任指定稿件的审查结果或不可能在规定的时间内完成文稿的评审时，应尽早告知编辑，以便编辑部更换审稿人。
三、作者的职责
1. 同行评审约定：向本刊投稿的作者被视为自愿遵从同行专家匿名评审的要求。作者可以对审稿结果向编辑部进行申诉，但不得以任何方式获取审稿专家的任何个人信息。
2. 学术规范性：本刊要求研究论文必须有创新性；立论科学，论点明确，推理严谨；词语准确，文字精练，数据可靠；插图具有高清晰性和可读性；内容充实完整；遵从国家法定计量单位、数字用法、标点符号及其他标准。
3. 原创性：本刊只刊登首发稿，严禁一稿多投，重复内容多次投稿（包括以不同文种分别投稿）以及抄袭他人论文等现象。一旦发现有上述情况，该作者的稿件将被作退稿处理，作者将被列入黑名单，同时通知所在单位，并向相关专业期刊通报。来稿如涉及保密事项，概由作者本人负责。
4. 对参考文献的要求：作者在文中引用他人观点、数据和材料的地方，应按顺序标明引用的有关图书、期刊资料，并在文末列出参考文献。参考文献应符合GB/T7714-2015《信息与文献 参考文献著录规则》的要求。
5. 对基金项目的要求：论文如获某项研究基金资助，应在稿件中注明基金项目来源的正式名称及编号。
6. 作者署名的要求：稿件的作者必须是直接参与研究工作或对其有重要指导作用的成员（如研究生导师等），严禁与论文无关人员挂名。
7. 版权转让约定：论文的著作权属于作者，文责由作者自负。本刊编辑部对来稿有文字修改权，对所发稿有版权。论文发表后，作者同意将该论文的相关著作权自动转让给编辑部，包括电子出版、多媒体出版、网络出版及以其他形式出版的权利。作者如果不允许本刊对稿件作文字性及内容删改，或不同意论文的转载、摘编、收录，请在投稿时声明。
四、撤稿与更正
1. 编辑在下列情况下应考虑撤稿：有明确的证据表明，因不当行为（如数据造假）或诚实的错误（例如误判或实验误差）导致研究结果不可靠；研究结果先前已发表在其他地方而没有适当的交叉引用、许可或理由（即重复发表）；构成剽窃；报道不道德的研究。
2. 撤稿通告应尽可能链接到该撤稿（即所有电子版本）；清楚地标识该撤消文章（例如，在撤稿标题中包括标题与作者）；及时公布，以尽量减少误导性出版物的有害影响。
3. 编辑在下列情况下应考虑发布更正：可靠的出版物中一小部分被证明是误导（尤其是因为诚实的错误）；作者/贡献者名单不正确（即称职的作者被省略或不符合著作权条件者被列入）。
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
China Pulp & Paper follows the recognized publication ethics. We firmly oppose plagiarism in any form. Authors submitting articles to the journal should affirm that manuscript contents are original. They should also warrant that their article has neither been published elsewhere in any language fully or partly, nor is it under review for publication anywhere.
The editors, authors and reviewers of China Pulp & Paper should perform the following duties, and adhere to the submission guidelines and other requirements of the journal.
Duties of Editor
1. Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject or request modifications to the manuscript.
2. Editors should have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject/accept.
3. Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality, making use of appropriate software to do so. After passing this test, the manuscript is forwarded to reviewers for double-blind peer review, who will make a recommendation to accept, reject, or modify the manuscript.
4. The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by China Pulp & Paper is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors.
Duties of Authors
1. Authors should present an accurate account of their original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Manuscripts will follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
2. Author should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. The author should not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal.
3. Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in their research work.
4. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors.
Duties of Reviewers
1. Manuscript reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. If the reviewers find plagiarism or a manuscript cast more phenomenon, they should immediately tell the editor.
2. Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders.
4. Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.
5. When a reviewer feels it is not possible to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.
Retractions and Corrections
1. Editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error); the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication); it constitutes plagiarism; it reports unethical research.
2. Notices of retraction should be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (i.e. in all electronic versions); clearly identify the retracted article (e.g. by including the title and authors in the retraction heading); be published promptly to minimize harmful effects from misleading publications.
3. Editors should consider issuing a correction if a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error); the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).