Academic Misconduct Handling Measures of the Journal of Library and Information Service

(Established in 2021)

These procedures apply to the two journals published by The Library and Information Press (hereinafter referred to as the Press), namely Library and Information Service and Knowledge Management Forum. These procedures are formulated in accordance with COPE guidelines (http://publicationethics.org), the Publishing Ethics Statement of the LIS Press, the Academic Integrity Declaration for Authors Submitting to Library and Information Service, and the Announcement on Further Strengthening the Discipline Against Academic Misconduct by Library and Information Service.

The Academic Misconduct Handling Measures include the following stages: initiation, investigation, and determination by the editorial department, determination by the journal editorial board, handling of the determination results, and completion of the record. The specific process is illustrated in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1 Academic Misconduct Handling Process of Library and Information Service

The Academic Misconduct Handling Measures taken against the authors include the following stages，detailed description is as follows:

1 Initiation

The journal initiates the academic misconduct handling process in the following cases: (1) receipt of reports of academic misconduct (anonymous or named; via telephone or email); (2) the editor discovers suspected cases of academic misconduct; (3) other suspected cases of academic misconduct related to the journal’s published journals, such as online public opinion; (4) other cases.

Once an incident is initiated, the author(s) of the suspected manuscript of academic misconduct is contacted immediately for an explanation and clarification; simultaneously, the editorial department conducts an investigation to determine the case.

2 Determination by the Editorial Department

The types of academic misconduct and the criteria for determination are as follows:

（1）Plagiarism. Criteria for determination: A text similarity rate of >=50% is directly determined as plagiarism; a text similarity rate of >=30% and <50%, if determined as plagiarism by two deputy researchers or above in the editorial department, is sufficient for determination; similarity in diagrams and tables over 50% without citation is directly determined as plagiarism; self-plagiarism can be classified as duplicate publication.

（2）Pilferage, advanced rewriting, impersonating an author. The determination of pilferage primarily relies on evidence provided by the reporter, proving that the initial draft does not belong to the author(s) of the suspected manuscript. The editorial department may also request the suspected author(s) to provide evidence to prove that the manuscript is their original work and not plagiarized, such as original experimental data, traces of manuscript writing, email correspondence, etc. Advanced rewriting, likely derived from plagiarized manuscripts, is classified together with pilferage. Advanced plagiarism or rewriting, also known as “article laundering,” involves modifying the expression and syntax to alter the original manuscript. Despite a low text similarity rate, a comprehensive review may reveal similar thoughts, logic, structure, and diagrams (this can occur within the same discipline or across different disciplines). The determination of advanced rewriting partly relies on evidence from the reporter and a thorough review by senior editors of the editorial department, and, if necessary, an expert review to make a judgment, to ascertain whether the reported manuscript constitutes advanced rewriting.

Impersonation generally stems from articles that have undergone advanced rewriting.

（3）Falsification of data. This mainly includes falsification of diagrams and their data (such as deliberately altering data or fabricating data to create ascending or descending curves, or generating any desired curve by the author); falsification of experimental data (such as using someone else’s experimental data as one’s own without conducting the related experiments, missing essential steps in experiments, fabricating or altering experimental results); and falsification of survey data (such as fabricating survey questionnaire data, fabricating interview data, inventing interviewees, etc.). Determination of data falsification is mainly through requesting the authors to provide original data and recreating experiments.

（4）Duplicate publication. Criteria for determination: Direct determination for one manuscript published twice or more in journals; a similarity rate of >=40% with one’s own preprint submissions (publicly available online), thesis (publicly available online), or conference papers (publicly available online) is directly determined as duplicate publication.

（5）No academic misconduct found.

3 Resolution of Disputes over Determination Results

If the editorial department determines that there is no academic misconduct, it needs to respond to the reporter. If the reporter has no objections, the case is closed and archived; if the reporter objects, the case is submitted to the editorial board for further determination.

If the editorial department believes that there is academic misconduct, it must notify the author(s). If the author(s) have no objections, the case is processed directly according to the determination results; if the author(s) object, the case is submitted to the editorial board for further determination.

The editorial department provides the necessary support for the editorial board’s determination, such as providing preliminary research results, consulting more specialized experts, and searching for policy documents.

If two or more members of the editorial board believe that there is academic misconduct and classify the type of misconduct, the reported article is considered to contain academic misconduct, and the case is processed according to the determination results of the editorial board.

If the editorial board, due to the complexity of the situation, cannot make a judgment and determination, the case is escalated to a higher-level academic committee for judgment.

Otherwise, it is determined that the article does not contain academic misconduct.

The determination results of the editorial board are final and are processed according to the corresponding procedures.

4 Handling of Academic Misconduct

The handling measures are shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1 Academic Misconduct Handling Measures in Library and Information Service

The Academic Misconduct Handling Measures taken against the editors:

Those serving as editors for Library and Information Service must meet the following qualifications and assume corresponding responsibilities: Holding a postgraduate degree or possessing an intermediate title along with equivalent credentials; Adhering to management regulations within the editorial department including taking full responsibility for overseeing review processes and equitably treating all submissions, while ensuring confidentiality and without utilizing unpublished materials for personal research purposes; Ensuring that the editing procedures align with established academic standards without arbitrary additions or deletions. 

To guarantee fulfillment of the editorial duties while effectively preventing editor-related academic misconduct, pertinent management measures are outlined as follows: Supervision from both the editorial board and department head involves critiquing less severe infractions through education alongside providing additional training when necessary. More serious transgressions such as unauthorized use of unpublished material warrant action under “the Academic Misconduct Handling Measures Taken Against the Authors”, whereas egregious behavior necessitates reporting to higher authorities for progressive resolution based on applicable guidelines. The competent organizer is responsible for leading and managing the editorial department, as well as addressing any instances of academic misconduct among editors in accordance with relevant regulations.

The Academic Misconduct Handling Measures taken against the Reviewers:

Persons acting as the journal’s reviewers shall bear the relevant responsibilities: 1. Meeting our reviewer qualifications and may not conceal or commit fraud; 2. Complying with the relevant provisions of the Editorial Office on the responsibilities and rights of reviewers (see “Regulations for Review Experts in the Peer Review Process”). In order to ensure the fulfillment of the responsibility of reviewers and effectively prevent the occurrence of academic misconduct by editors, the journal stipulates that: For academic misconduct that is not severe, the individual will be subjected to criticism, education, and retraining. For more serious cases, the editorial board will discuss the matter, revoke the individual's reviewing privileges, and impose appropriate penalties based on the specific misconduct.

LIS Press Co., Ltd.