General principles

Scientific journals are not only the main carrier for recording scientific discoveries and stimulating innovative ideas, but also a new force for abiding by scientific ethics and safeguarding academic integrity. In order to strengthen the academic integrity culture, standardize the process of writing, reviewing, editing and publishing papers, and resist academic misconduct, we formulate ethical standards for authors, reviewers, editors and publishers of Herald of Medicine in accordance with the relevant provisions in Copyright Law, Regulations on the Administration of Publication, domestic and foreign publication ethics, and combined with the actual situation of our journal.
1. In the present standards, "publication ethics" refers to moral and conduct standards that should be followed by all subjects in the publishing of academic journals.
2. Academic misconduct is any action that violating academic norms and ethics. It includes, but is not limited to, data fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. Fabrication is making up data that never happened or exist. Falsification is alteration or distortion of data by means of forgery. Plagiarism refers to the action of stealing or modifying others' works and presenting it as his/her own, copying others' works in whole or in part under the same way of use, or changing their form or content to a certain extent, including plagiarism of opinions, paragraphs, and full text. Academic misconduct is specifically manifested as plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, improper authorship, multiple submissions, redundant publication, slicing publication, violation of relevant research ethics, etc.
3. Our journal directly rejects the manuscript with a copy ratio of more than 20%. For manuscripts with a copy ratio of less than 20%, we will investigate whether the duplicated contents are the main results or opinions. If so, it cannot be published.
4. Conflict of interest refers to the conflict between secondary interests (e.g. economic interests, friendship, kinship, etc.) and the primary interests represented by their duties (e.g. ensuring the objectivity of research results, etc.). The conflict can occur between different individuals or between individuals and institutions.

I. Ethics for authors
1. Authors shall be responsible for the authenticity of the paper, and should supply original images, original data, fund establishment certificate, project name and other supporting materials when required by the editorial office.
2. Authors are required to submit the Authorization for the Exclusive Use of Papers signed by all authors when submitting the manuscript, in which the authenticity of the manuscript content (data and author information), no multiple submissions, no confidentiality issue involved, and no dispute about the authorship should be stated.
3. Authors shall abide by the principle of "Five Don'ts": don’t let a third party write the paper; don’t let a third party submit the papers; don't allow the third party to revise the paper content; don’t violate the authorship rules (see Items 4-7); don't allow non-substantial academic contributors to be listed as authors.
4. Individuals who meet the following criteria can be listed as authors: (1) substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; (2) drafting the paper or revising it critically for important intellectual content; (3) final approval of the version to be published; (4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Those who do not meet all four criteria (such as those who only provide technical assistance or financial and material funding) should not be listed as authors. Instead, their contributions should be listed in the Acknowledgements section of the article.
5. In principle, the order of authors should be listed according to their contributions, which should be discussed and agreed by all authors and determined at the time of submission. After the paper is submitted, the authors and institutions cannot be changed. If changes are really necessary, the main authors in charge of the paper (first author and corresponding author) shall submit a written change application to state the reasons, and all authors (including the original authors and the revised authors) sign and approve it. If author's name or order on the revised draft is modified without the consent of the editorial office, and hence results in copyright disputes, the author shall be responsible for the consequences.
6. In general, only one person is specified as the corresponding author. If it is a standardized multicenter or multidisciplinary collaborative study, and there is more than one corresponding author, it can be increased according to their contributions. The additional corresponding authors should be the academic responsible persons of different research institutions or groups collaborating on the research.
7. If there are co-first authors, it should be indicated at the time of submission. The number of co-first authors generally should not be more than two. If it is a standardized multicenter or multidisciplinary collaborative study, and there are indeed more than two co-first authors, it can be increased as appropriate. The additional co-first authors should be from different research institutions or groups in the collaborative research.
8. Authors should indicate their names and affiliations when submitting manuscripts. Author's institution should be related to the research content of the paper, if not, the author should explain his or her contribution to the research, or the author's institution provides a certificate to prove that the author is indeed engaged in the research.
9. If the institution to which the author belongs is inconsistent with the institution where the topic selection, research scheme design, implementation and research conditions are completed (such as graduated students, advanced students or visiting scholars leaving the training institution, cooperative research, etc.), the institution that provided the research conditions and completed the research work is the first institution.
10. Clinical trial research should follow the "favorable principle" and "non-invasive principle" of bioethics. For clinical trials and animal experimental papers, author shall provide the ethical review approval documents of the research protocol. Informed consent form shall be provided for the research involving patients (subjects) and stated in the appropriate position of the paper.
11. Authors should declare whether there is a conflict of interest when submitting the paper. If there is a conflict of interest, all economic interests that may have an impact on the results of the study should be stated (whether the study has a commercial interest with pharmaceutical company; whether pharmaceutical company has given any financial sponsorship in experiment design and implementation, data processing, article writing and publication, etc.).
12. If authors have any objection to the review opinions and results, he/she can appeal and reply in the review system, or communicate with the editorial office by email, telephone or other means to make a detailed explanation for each review opinion.

II. Ethics for reviewers
1. Reviewers should adhere to the principles of fairness, impartiality, confidentiality and timeliness to make responsible review opinions on the manuscript. It is not allowed to have prejudice or discrimination against author's institution, region, qualifications, ethnicity, etc., or disclose the research content.
2. When there is a conflict of interest between reviewer and author (such as kinship, teacher-student relationship, alumni relationship, colleague relationship, competition relationship), in order to ensure the fairness of the review, the reviewer shall declare the conflict of interest to the editorial office in time, and the latter shall decide whether to avoid it.
3. When a reviewer finds that the author's research is similar to his own, he shall not use the convenience of peer review to suppress or disparage the author's work.
4. Reviewers shall timely review the manuscript as agreed. If the reviewer cannot complete it on time, he/she shall timely notify the editorial office and return the manuscript, and other reviewers may be recommended.
5. When reviewers encounter manuscripts that have been reviewed, reviewers have the obligation to report it to the editorial office and fill in review opinions according to the journal inclusion standards.

III. Ethics for editors
1. Editors should handle each manuscript fairly, impartially and timely, and make a decision to accept or reject the manuscript according to the importance, originality, scientificity, readability, authenticity of the research and its relevance to the journal.
2. Editors should abide by the principle of confidentiality, not only strictly protect the reviewer’s information, but also keep the author's research content confidential.
3. Editors must not be driven by interests to interfere in peer review, and should strive to ensure independent review by reviewers to ensure fairness and impartiality of peer review.
4. For peer reviewers recommended by authors, editors should verify the authenticity of reviewer information, and decide whether to choose the recommended reviewers based on their research fields and expertise, whether there is a conflict of interest with the authors, etc. If authors propose non-preferred reviewers and the request is reasonable, the editor should respect it.
5. When selecting reviewers, editors should try to avoid choosing experts in the same institution as authors, and authors must not be reviewers.
6. If there is a conflict of interest between editors and authors (such as kinship, teacher-student relationship, alumni relationship, colleague relationship, competition relationship), the editor should avoid handling the manuscript.
7. Editors should treat author's appeal with caution, and organize a collective discussion or re-review by reviewers.
8. Editors should consider publishing negative results from scientifically rigorous studies to avoid unnecessary duplication of research by other scholars.
9. Editors have the responsibility to avoid academic misconduct such as multiple submissions and redundant publication. They should check and review a manuscript twice when it is first submitted and upcoming published through the academic misconduct detection system provided by CNKI and Wanfang Data.
10. Editors have the obligation to remind authors of copyright and intellectual property issues that may arise after changing the author’s name, institution and their order.
11. Editors shall provide authors with comments on revision or reasons for rejection as detailed as possible.
12. Editors should respect author's view and writing style, and obtain the author's consent for key changes to the paper such as academic views.

IV. Ethics for Publishers
1. Our journal follows the principle of first publication and only reports original research results. However, articles that meet the following conditions can be published again: (1) republished in another language for readers in different regions; (2) authors must be authorized by the first and republished journals; (3) the time interval between republication and first publication is at least one week; (4) republished papers shall indicate the first published journal’s name, year, volume, issue, page number, the paper’s title, original URL and other information.
2. If any academic misconduct is found in the manuscript that has been finalized and accepted, the journal has the right to reject the manuscript and notify authors’ institutions and relevant journals.
3. If academic misconduct is found in published papers, this journal will retract the manuscript and publish a retraction statement.
4. The journal shall publish detailed guidelines (such as submission guidelines, writing guidelines, etc.) required by authors and update them timely.
5. The journal shall establish regulations and systems to manage the conflicts of interest among their editors, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.

For more details, please refer to the official website of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://www.publicationethics.org/) and the standards for publication ethics developed by the European Society of Scientific Editors (EASE).