Research and PublicationEthics

Publication Ethics Statement

To ensure the quality and integrity of academic publications, maintain public trust in scientific research, and ensure that intellectual contributions are accurately recognized, *Creative Engineering* strictly adheres to the code of conduct and best practice guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Research Ethics and Informed Consent

involving human participants
must adhere to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and obtain approval from an independent ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB) at the local, regional, or national level before the research begins. Details of the ethical approval, including the name of the approving body, must be stated in the "Ethics Statement" section of the manuscript. If an exemption from ethical approval is granted, the authors must clearly state the name of the ethics committee granting the exemption and the reasons for the exemption. Authors should cooperate with the editors by providing relevant ethical documents as requested. Manuscripts suspected of ethical issues will be investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines.

involving
human participants requires written informed consent from the participant or the parent/legal guardian of any participant under the age of 16. The ethics statement must include instructions regarding informed consent. If an informed consent exemption is granted, the authors must provide the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption and the reasons for it. Any ethical violations discovered before or after publication will be handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.

published
online. No manuscripts containing personally identifiable information (such as personal data, images, or videos) may be published without the explicit written consent of the individual or the parent/legal guardian of a minor. If the individual is deceased, consent from their next of kin is required. Authors must include a "Statement of Consent" confirming that written informed consent has been obtained.

Research involving animals
must be approved by the relevant ethics committee and follow institutional, national, or international guidelines. This journal encourages authors to conduct research in accordance with the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS), the ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting in Vivo), and the International Committee on Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) guidelines, and to obtain ethical approval in advance.

Manuscripts must include a statement confirming ethical approval and that the research complied with relevant guidelines throughout. If an ethical approval exemption is granted, the authors must state the name of the committee granting the exemption and the detailed reasons. The editors will assess animal welfare issues and reserve the right to reject manuscripts that deviate from accepted standards of animal research.

Research involving plants
, including experimental studies of plants (cultivated or wild) and the collection of plant material, must adhere to institutional, national, or international guidelines. Field research must comply with local laws and regulations. Manuscripts must state that all relevant permits have been obtained. This journal recommends that authors comply with the IUCN Policy Statement on Research on Endangered Species and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Each submission must provide supporting information such as the genetic background and origin of the plant materials used. For studies involving rare or non-model plants (excluding typical model species such as Arabidopsis thaliana, Bentammi, and rice), voucher specimens must be preserved in a public herbarium or other publicly accessible collection.

Questionable Research Practices (QRP) and Academic Misconduct:
This journal is fully committed to investigating the following publishing misconduct:

Data fabrication and falsification : Fabrication refers to creating data out of thin air; falsification refers to altering data after research.

 

Improper image processing includes adding, enhancing, moving, or deleting image features; improperly merging images; or adjusting contrast, brightness, or color balance to mask, eliminate, or enhance information.

 

Plagiarism : taking the work, viewpoints, or text of others as one's own, as well as extensively reusing one's own published content.

 

Improper citation behavior includes: failing to properly cite closely related literature; failing to properly acknowledge previous research; or deliberately omitting relevant citations (including one's own work) in order to highlight the novelty of the results.

 

Publicity and citation manipulation : This includes publicly promoting manuscripts that are still under review or awaiting publication; and excessive or inappropriate self-citation in order to inflate citation metrics.

 

Submitting a manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously is considered unethical, wastes editorial and reviewer resources, and may damage the journal's reputation.

 

Improper authorship or attribution of contributions : This includes including individuals who did not make substantial scientific contributions to the research or did not endorse the entire manuscript, or omitting actual contributors (such as students, assistants, technicians, etc.).

 

This journal reserves the right to contact the author's institution before or after publication to investigate any suspected misconduct. If serious plagiarism is discovered after publication, the journal will retract the article or require corrections based on the severity of the plagiarism, the context, and its impact on the overall integrity of the article, in accordance with the COPE retraction guidelines.

Author's Ethical Guidelines

The responsible and collaborating
authors are responsible for the validity, accuracy, and reliability of the manuscript and must provide original images, data, and other supporting materials as required by the editorial office.

as
an author, all four of the following conditions must be met:

  • Make substantial contributions to the conception, design, or acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of research data;
  • Participate in drafting documents or make significant revisions to their key content;
  • Agreed to publish the final version;
  • Committed to taking responsibility for all aspects of the work, ensuring that the accuracy and completeness of any part are properly checked and processed.

Individuals who do not meet all four criteria (such as those who only provide technical support, funding, or materials) should not be listed as authors, but may be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section.

The corresponding
author is responsible for communicating with the journal editor throughout the entire process (including before and after publication). They must typically ensure all journal requirements are met, including: confirming all authors' consent to authorship and submission; providing complete author information; submitting ethics approval and informed consent documents as required; and collecting conflict of interest disclosure forms. In principle, only one corresponding author is required. Multiple corresponding authors may be appointed for multi-institutional or interdisciplinary research, but their respective academic responsibilities must be clearly defined.

Author
order should be determined by all authors based on their contributions and requires their consent. Any change in author or institutional affiliation must be formally proposed by the corresponding author (first author and/or corresponding author), accompanied by a reasonable explanation and the written consent of all authors, and submitted to the editorial office for review.

manuscripts,
authors with equal contributions should be clearly identified. Generally, there should be no more than two co-first authors. Multicenter trials or multidisciplinary studies may allow more than two co-first authors, provided the list is determined based on actual contributions. Co-first authors beyond two should come from different institutions or research teams.

with conflicts of interest
must disclose all actual or potential financial and/or non-financial conflicts of interest on the title page, supplementary notes, and cover letter, and confirm them in the submission system. If there are no conflicts of interest, an author statement must be made stating "Author Declaration: No Conflict of Interest". If conflicts of interest exist, all relevant financial interests that may affect the research results must be fully disclosed.

The funding statement
must list all organizations, institutions, or individuals that provided financial support during the research and/or manuscript preparation process.

If
an author disagrees with the peer review results or the editor's decision, they may submit a written appeal to the editorial office, clearly stating the reasons for their objection. The editor will review the appeal to determine whether there was any misjudgment by the reviewer or if supplementary review is required. The editor's decision at this stage is final.

Once a manuscript has been peer-reviewed and formally accepted, no changes to the author's name, regardless of the author, are permitted.

the proofreading
stage, authors must not alter data, charts, or key results.

When
authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in published works, they are obligated to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate by issuing a correction statement, retracting the manuscript, or revising the article.

Reviewer Ethics Guidelines
Reviewers are independent experts who assist in assessing the suitability of manuscripts for publication and are not employees of the publisher. Reviewers must adhere to the following responsibilities:

Confidentiality
- Consult the editor before inviting third parties to participate in peer review.

  • The identity of the reviewers and details of the peer review process must not be disclosed to any third party.
  • No part of the unpublished manuscript (including data, information, interpretations, or discussions) may be shared with others.
  • Once the manuscript has been reviewed, it must not be retained in any form and must comply with applicable data protection regulations.

The misuse of information is prohibited.
Confidential information or viewpoints obtained from unpublished manuscripts must not be used for the reviewer's own research.

reviewer
believes they lack the necessary review qualifications or is unable to review a manuscript for any reason, they must promptly inform the editor.

Conflict of interest
: Any conflict of interest arising at any stage of the peer review process must be disclosed to the editor. Potential conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:

  • Maintain close personal or professional relationships with any author;
  • The work being reviewed is in direct competition with the reviewer's current project.

Timeliness is crucial; peer
review should be completed promptly. If an extension is needed or the process cannot continue, the editor must be notified immediately.

Objectivity
should be demonstrated through a careful and objective evaluation of the manuscript and all supporting materials, interpreting and justifying the evaluation based on relevant published literature. Suggested references must be entirely based on their relevance to the work being reviewed.

Professional
comments on authors should be polite, respectful, and professional, focusing on the content of the manuscript and avoiding personal attacks.

reviewed
is found to be substantially similar to or overlaps with known published or pending works, the editor must be informed.

Ethical issues
should alert editors to any signs of potential ethical problems, including but not limited to:

  • Any form of research misconduct (such as plagiarism or data manipulation);
  • Ethical issues involving human or animal research;
  • Insufficient consideration was given to the risk of the research findings being misused or used for dual purposes that could endanger public health or safety.

The editorial ethics guidelines
stipulate that editors, whether full-time in-house editors or active researchers holding editorial positions, are responsible for the final acceptance decision of manuscripts. The following responsibilities also apply to members of the editorial board.

Editorial decisions
must be based entirely on the scientific value of the work and must not take into account the author's institution, nationality, race, gender, age, or other personal characteristics.

Fairness and timeliness
should be ensured to guarantee that the peer review process is fair and timely.

Confidentiality
must be maintained regarding submitted manuscripts. Except in formal investigations involving suspected misconduct, manuscript details must not be disclosed to anyone other than the reviewers without the author's consent.

conflicts of interest
must be disclosed, especially when the editor is an active researcher:

  • If the editor is the submitting author, the manuscript must be processed by other editors through an independent review process.
  • If the author is a current or former colleague and/or frequent collaborator of the editor, the manuscript must be assigned to another editor.
  • Information from unpublished submissions must not be used in personal works. If the topic of a manuscript is closely related to the editor's own research, it must be assigned to another editor.

Reviewer selection
should be conducted carefully to ensure impartiality:
• Author-recommended reviewers should be used cautiously to avoid bias.
• The contact information of author-recommended reviewers must be independently verified to ensure the integrity of the review process.
• The right to appoint reviewers independently should be reserved.
• Reviewers explicitly objected to by the authors should not be used without sufficient justification.

Confidentiality of reviewer information
requires ensuring the confidentiality of reviewers' names and identification details. In special circumstances (such as suspected ethical misconduct), information regarding the ruling may be disclosed to former reviewers.

Appeals
against editorial decisions should be handled fairly and prudently.

Data protection
must comply with applicable data protection regulations.

The handling of issues
should promptly follow up on any signs or allegations of unethical research practices (see the aforementioned “Suspicious Research Practices and Academic Misconduct” section).

Appeals and Complaints

appealing
rejection decisions must first contact the editor as instructed on the journal's website. Such requests are considered formal appeals. According to journal policy, appeals have lower priority than regular editorial work and processing may take several weeks. Only one appeal is allowed per manuscript, and the final decision rests with the handling editor or the appropriate member of the editorial board. Appeals will only be considered in the following situations:
• The author can demonstrate that the reviewer or editor made a substantial factual or interpretative error that significantly impacts the final decision;
• The author can provide substantial new data;
• The author can demonstrate clear bias in the review process.

Authors who wish to appeal must contact the editorial office to submit a formal written appeal. If the appeal is successful, the author will receive further instructions; if further review is required, the editor may send the author's response and revised manuscript for supplementary peer review.

Complaints
regarding editorial processes or publishing ethics should first be handled by the journal's responsible editor. If the complaint involves the editor, the complainant should contact the editorial and publishing management team via email.

For process-related complaints (such as review time limits): The editor will review and respond, and provide feedback to relevant parties to improve the process.

Complaints involving publishing ethics or scientific content : The editors will handle them in accordance with the guidelines published by COPE.

For complex or difficult cases : Editors may consult the BIG.D Research Integrity Team to determine the appropriate course of action and provide feedback to the complainant.
If the complainant is still dissatisfied with the outcome, the matter will be escalated to the journal's editorial and publishing management team for further investigation.