Publication Ethics – 中華民國航空測量及遙感探測學會

出版倫理聲明

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of JPRS

出版倫理聲明

航測及遙測學刊(Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, JPRS)(以下簡稱本學刊)致力於航測與遙感探測面向上出版具新發現、科學性與實務應用的高品質研究論文。本學刊不接受任何不當行為之研究報告，包含：剽竊、一稿多投(重複投稿)、杜撰(假造)資料、捉刀(槍手)著作、掛名與未揭露之利益衝突等。本學刊採用(依循) Elsevier B.V 建議之《出版倫理 Publishing Ethics》規定 https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/publishing-ethics。內容包含作者、審查委員與本學刊編輯者之義務。摘錄自上述網頁《出版倫理》之資料並稍作更改如下：
1.	作者義務
1.1	論文標準
	作者需表明原始論文著作中之客觀討論精確度與重要性，基本研究資料須精確表示於文件中。研究論文必須包含參考資料與重要細節，以利他人重複實驗。本學刊不接受任何構成不道德行為之詐欺與不正確敘述。回顧論文與專業發表之文章必須精確且客觀。
1.2	資料使用與保留
	作者需保留原始數據，於出版後供編輯評審或大眾取得資料之用。
1.3	原創性與剽竊
	作者應確保整份報告為自身之作品，若有使用其他作者之論述，須明確引述。本學刊不接受剽竊等不道德行為，包含：私自挪用他人結論為自己成果、複製或重新闡示其他作品之精華與仿冒他人作品為自己著作。
1.4	複合、重複或同時出版之出版品
	作者不應該同時發表本質上相同的研究論文(報告)於多個期刊或出版品，投稿同一份原稿至不同期刊被視為不符合出版道德的行為。作者不能將之前被發表的研究投至另一期刊，但在特定條件下二次出版(secondary publication)可被允許，作者與各(第一與二次)期刊編輯者均需同意進行二次出版，且二次出版的資料與闡釋必須與原第一次出版論文相符，而第一次出版也必須列於二次出版品之參考文獻內。
1.5	資料來源之告知
	作者必須善盡引用他人作品的責任。作者應舉出影響研究本質的因素。私底下獲得之資訊，如對話、書信、第三方之討論等，若無資料來源明確的書面授權函，不應使用或發表。透過審查他人文件而獲得之資訊，例如審閱他人稿件或申請書，如無原著人明確的書面授權函，不應使用或發表。
1.6	研究報告之作者
	對於研究報告有構思、設計、執行或闡明等重要貢獻才得以取得作者之身分，所有對研究報告有卓越貢獻者需列於共同作者之列，若有參與相關研究計畫之人員也必須詳列清楚。通訊作者需確保所有具有貢獻的共同作者都列名於論文中，且對論文沒有貢獻者不應列名於論文中。通訊作者需確認每位共同作者於投稿前，應完成檢視文件並同意該論文稿投稿。
1.7	危害物與人、動物之實驗對象
	研究工作包含會產生嚴重危害之化學品、研究過程或器具設施，作者需於原稿詳細闡述之。若研究工作包含人類或動物等實驗對象，作者需於原稿詳述過程，並確保合乎相關法律規定與制度之指導方針。以人類試驗對象之研究，作者需於原稿內聲明進行人體試驗之同意權，人體試驗對象之隱私權必須持續受到監控。
1.8	利益衝突
	作者需公開任何可能被視為影響研究結果或結果闡釋的所有研究經費來源或其他會有利益衝突的資料，包含資金補助、計畫補助、僱傭關係、顧問、材料物品擁有權、報酬、專家證詞費用、專利申請/註冊或捐款授權。未來可能的利益衝突之資料必須儘早提供。
1.9	研究內容之錯誤
	當作者發現研究內容含有錯誤或不正確資訊，應迅速通知編輯者與編輯部，並採取撤回論文或改正等措施。若編輯者或編輯部透過第三方得知研究論文(報告)包含重大錯誤，作者除了採取以上動作之外，需提供編輯者改正後之資料。
2.	編輯者義務
	下列指導方針依據 Elsevier與 COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors提供之原則。
2.1	出版決定權
	對期刊論文稿完成「同儕評審」(peer review)之稿件，編輯者決定投稿文章是否出版，可依據研究議題本身或對其他研究者或讀者們的重要性決定。編輯者需遵行期刊編輯指導原則與違反毀謗、版權與剽竊之法律原則。編輯者可授權評審委員行使出版決定權。
2.2	公平競爭
	編輯者需依照論文內容進行評審，不得依據種族、性別、性傾向、宗教、國籍與政治信仰作為評審標準。
2.3	機密原則
	編輯者與協助編輯之人員不得向相關個別作者、評審委員、編輯顧問與出版者公開原稿之任何訊息。
2.4	公開原則與利益衝突
	(1)未取得作者之同意，編輯者不得將提交原稿中未發表著作為自己研究所用。
	(2)由同儕評審提供之訊息與構思必須符合機密原則並不得挪為私人利益之用。
	(3)當編輯者認為與投稿作者、企業與組織構成競爭、合作或其他關聯等利益衝突時，必須迴避稿件審查，並請求編輯委員、副編輯或助理編輯代理。
	(4)編輯者須要求所有研究貢獻者公開相關利益衝突資訊。若利益衝突於出版後被揭露，須發表更正說明或發表撤銷出版或利害關係聲明等必要措施。
	(5)須確保贊助品(sponsored supplements)在同儕評審的過程中受到與期刊其他論文相同要求的審查。
	(6)贊助品項目須完全符合學術使用之價值，而非商業利益考量。
	(7)若出版品無同儕評審，須清楚標明。
2.5	調查參與
	當原稿或發表之研究發生違反著作倫理事件之控訴，編輯者與發行者(或中華民國航空測量及遙感探測學會)需採取適度因應措施，包括聯繫作者、中華民國航空測量及遙感探測學會或研究團隊並告知其缺失。若控訴成立，必須採取更正、撤回、釐清聲明等相關措施。任何有關違反出版倫理之行為必須深入調查，即使在發表多年後仍然有其追訴效力。
3.	審查委員義務
3.1	即時效力
	被選任之審查委員若認為不適任或無法及時評審，必須通知總編輯並主動要求撤銷審查委員資格。
3.2	機密原則
	審查委員審核之原稿將視為機密文件，不得向編輯者以外之人透漏。
3.3	客觀標準
	審查委員必須排除個人觀點公正且客觀執行評審工作，並且提出為自己的評審論述提供相關佐證。對於作者的個人批評(personal criticism)並不恰當。
3.4	來源告知
	審查委員須識別沒有被作者引註的相關資料，前人進行之監測、調查或內容須附在相關引註內。審查委員也必須提醒編輯者注意任何與其他作者有大致相似性或部分重疊的部份。
3.5	公開原則與利益衝突
	未取得作者之同意，審查委員不得將提交原稿中未發表著作為自己研究所用。被本學報授權獲得之訊息與構思必須符合機密原則，並不得挪為私人利益之用。當審查委員認為與其他作者、企業與組織構成競爭、合作或其他關聯等利益衝突時，必須要求迴避審查委員資格。

航測及遙測學刊Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, JPRS 2018/02/26

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (JPRS)

Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing(JPRS) is committed to publish high quality original papers with novel, scientific, and practical findings in all aspects related to the field of photogrammetry and remote sensing. The JPRS accepts no paper with publication malpractice, including: plagiarism, redundant (duplicate) publication, fabricated data, “ghost” or “gift” authorship, undisclosed conflict of interest (COI), etc. The JPRS also adopts / adheres to the “Publishing ethics” https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/publishing-ethics suggested by Elsevier B.V. for the duties of authors, reviewers, and JPRS editors. The “Publishing ethics” are excerpted from the above Elsevier webpage and slightly modified as following:
1.	Duties of authors
1.1	Reporting standards
	Authors of an original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
	Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
1.2	Data access and retention
	Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
1.3	Originality and plagiarism
	The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, and that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
	Plagiarism takes many forms, including ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), and claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
1.4	Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
	An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
1.5	Acknowledgement of sources
	Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, such as conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
1.6	Authorship of the paper
	Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
1.7	Hazards and human or animal subjects
	If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
1.8	Disclosure and conflicts of interest
	All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
	Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed, including employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
1.9	Fundamental errors in published works
	When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
2.	Duties of editors
	These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
2.1	Publication decisions
	The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2	Fair play
	An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3	Confidentiality
	The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4	Disclosure and conflicts of interest
	(1)Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
	(2)Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
	(3)Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
	(4)Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
	(5)It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal.
	(6)Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations.
	(7)Non-peer reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified.
2.5	Involvement and cooperation in investigations
	An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
3.	Duties of reviewers
3.1	Contribution to editorial decisions
	Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. We share the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2	Promptness
	Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3	Confidentiality
	Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
3.4	Standards of objectivity
	Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5	Acknowledgement of sources
	Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6	Disclosure and conflict of interest
	Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing(JPRS) February 26, 2018

出版倫理聲明

我們的官方社群

與我們聯絡