Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

 
      Meteorological Monthly publishes reviews and research papers in the field of meteorology; new theories, technologies, ideas and methods in meteorological research and service; technologies in weather, climate diagnostic analysis, monitoring and forecasting; experience in technologies and modernization of meteorological service; the law of meteorological disasters and decision-making for disaster prevention and mitigation; technologies in public meteorological services and professional meteorological services. As a peer-reviewed journal, we conform to Code of Conducts and Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, http://publicationethics.org/) and we are committed to publishing original work by the named author or authors.  Meteorological Monthly adopts single-blind review system to strictly control the quality of articles, and prevents plagiarism, multiple submissions of one manuscript, writing papers, third-party submissions, unreasonable signatures and other academic misconducts. Meteorological Monthly (including print and electronic versions) and all content published on this website, its copyright, trademark rights, the publishing copyright and other related rights belong to the copyright owner or the corresponding right owner, and are protected by Chinese laws and international conventions that China has joined.
 

For Authors
    1) Submission must be an original contribution by the named author or authors, and it has never been published before. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are considered unethical, and the bibliography information should be clearly annotated in the references. The data should be true, non-deceptive, and no fudging or plagiarism as well as other academic misconduct action.
    2) All authors should be contributors to the work. There’s no dispute in the author order, and the corresponding author should ensure that publication of the paper be authorized by the other authors. Alteration of the author order before publication should be consented by all authors to ensure the accuracy of all authors’ rights.
     3) Funds information should be indicated in the manuscript. Support or aid for the publication of the work by persons having no author qualifications should be clearly stated in the acknowledgement.
    4) We are against any unethical publishing behavior (e.g. fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate submission, etc.). If the misconduct is found, sanctions will include: retracting the paper, informing the authors’ institute, issuing online and printed announcement, and banning the submissions from authors for three years.
 
For Reviewers
    1) Comment should be objective and fair and opinions on the academic value and whether the paper can meet the publication standards should be clear and precise to avoid ambiguity.
    2) A reviewer should respect different academic views and shall not make rude, aggressive comments. Serious scientific misconduct should be reported to the editorial office.
    3) If a reviewer is not familiar work or method to make a fair peer review, please inform the editorial office. For paper with conflicts in interests or having shared benefits, avoidance of peer review is required.
    4) When a peer review invitation is accepted, the review comments should be submitted within the planning time; hinders or delays for completion of review should be notified to the editorial office in time.
 
For Editors
    1) Ensure the justice of review and reduce bias. Make efforts to ensure the timely process for contribution by arranging peer review and publication promptly, especially for papers with important findings.
    2) Ensure the journal publication on time with schedule. Report novel and authentic researches, give priority to publication of frontier and hot issues. Avoid publication with academic misconducts, including plagiarism/self-plagiarism.
     3) A suitable and competent reviewers’ database should be established and maintained. Quality of reviewing tasks by reviews/editorial board members should truthfully record and evaluate.
    4) Convey the experts’ review comments to the author timely. Coordinate academic discussions and communications between the author and reviewer. Offensive or defamatory comments are not considered. The author’s appeal on the final decision is accepted.
    5) Make recommendation (revision, rejection or acceptance) based on the merits, originality, and relevance of the paper. Meanwhile the author should be informed of the rights to make appeals after receiving the final decision.
    6) We are against any unethical publishing behavior (eg. fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate submission, etc.). If the misconduct is found, sanctions will include: retracting the paper, informing the authors’ institute, issuing online and printed announcement, and banning the submissions from authors for three years.

Academic Misconduct
    Meteorological Monthly only accepts original articles that have not been submitted to other journals and have not been published. Academic misconduct such as plagiarism, data forgery, multiple submissions, and redundant publication are strictly prohibited.
In order to prevent academic misconduct, the Editorial Office adopts the AMLC System provided by China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI)  to check the manuscripts during the preliminary review stage and before their publication.
    Manuscripts involving academic misconduct will be rejected by the journal. If a manuscript is found to involve academic misconduct after publication, the journal will retract the manuscript, notify the authors’ institutions and other relevant journals, and hold the authors responsible in accordance with relevant law and regulations, and the "Copyright Transfer Agreement" signed by the authors. For manuscripts with severe academic misconduct (e.g., intentional multiple submissions), the journal will no longer accept the authors’ submission. 

Appeal, Retraction and Correction
    1) Meteorological Monthly accepts authors’ appeals
    If authors have any disagreement about the review comments or review results, they could submit a written complaint to the Editorial Office. The author who submits the appeal needs to make detailed explanation for each review comment. After receiving the appeal, the Editorial Office will investigate and deal with it as soon as possible, and the result of the appeal will be fed back to the author.
    2) Editors will consider retracting manuscripts under the following circumstances
    If a manuscript which has been accepted by the journal is found to involve academic misconduct, the Editorial Office has the right to retract the manuscript and inform the authors’ institutions and other journals of the situation.
    If an article which has been published by the journal is confirmed to involve plagiarized research results, falsified data, redundant publication, betraying confidential matters or other issues, the Editorial Office will retract the article, including publishing a retraction statement publicly, informing the authors and their institutions, and requiring relevant databases to delete all online versions of the article so that the adverse effects of the misleading article could be minimized.
In addition, if an article which has been accepted or published by the journal is found to have severe scientific errors, which makes the results and conclusions of the article unreliable, the Editorial Office will retract the article, including publishing a retraction statement publicly and requiring relevant databases to delete the online versions of the article.
    3) Editors will consider correcting manuscripts under the following circumstances
    If parts of an article turn out to be scientifically incorrect but would not materially affect the results and conclusions (especially due to honest errors), or the author list of an article is incorrect (i.e., competent authors were ignored or those unqualified were listed as authors), the Editorial Office will consider to publish a corrected version of the article.

Others

    1）The main revenue source of the Journal is supported by the sponsor. Peer review is free of charge and publishing fee will be charged appropriately after paper acceptance. The papers with favorable ratings and the papers reporting research fronts will be free for publication.

    2）Meteorological Monthly has not an advertising business license at present, so there is no advertising business.