Code of Ethics
The Journal has formulated a Statement of Ethics for authors, editors, and reviewers based on the guidelines and standards published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and in accordance with its own practice.
For Authors
1. Responsibility and Authenticity: Authors must ensure the authenticity of their manuscripts, refrain from plagiarism, and actively participate in the research work. Any unpublished content or text must be clearly cited with proper attribution.
2. Authorship Criteria: Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the research. All authors must unanimously agree on the submission and publication of the manuscript. Any changes to the order of authorship, or the addition or removal of authors before publication, must be approved by all authors and submitted to the editorial office with a written justification. The journal generally does not accept changes to the first or corresponding author after submission, nor does it accept the
designation of co-first or co-corresponding authors.
3. Confidentiality and Sensitivity: Authors must ensure that their manuscripts do not involve sensitive issues related to political, military, or state secrets that are unsuitable for publication.
4. Originality and Exclusivity: Manuscripts submitted to FCE should be original and not under consideration by another journal. Authors should avoid submitting the same or highly similar manuscripts to more than one journal simultaneously to prevent duplicate or repetitive publication.
5. Authorship is determined in accordance with the ICMJE definitions of authorship and contributorship.
For Editors
1. Fair and Impartial Handling: Editors must handle all manuscripts fairly, impartially, and promptly, making decisions based on the opinions of the Editorial Board and relevant regulations.
2. Confidentiality: Editors must maintain the confidentiality of author and reviewer information and keep the contents of the manuscript confidential until it is published.
3. Independent Peer Review: Editors must ensure the independence of peer review by selecting unbiased reviewers and not interfering with the review process based on personal interests. This ensures that peer review remains fair and impartial.
4. Verification of Reviewer Information: When authors recommend reviewers, editors must verify the authenticity of the reviewers' information. The decision to use recommended reviewers should be based on their expertise and potential conflicts of interest. Reasonable requests from authors to exclude certain reviewers must be honored.
5. Prevention of Academic Misconduct: Editors are responsible for preventing academic misconduct such as multiple submissions, duplicate publications, and plagiarism.
They should conduct thorough checks at various stages, including initial submission, acceptance, and pre-publication.
For Reviewers
1. Double-Anonymised Peer Review: FCE employs a double-anonymised peer review process. Reviewers must have the necessary expertise to evaluate the manuscript and provide objective, timely feedback to assist both the editorial board and the authors in improving their work.
2. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts if they have any conflicts of interest, such as personal, financial, intellectual, or professional conflicts.
3. Confidentiality of Review Process: Reviewers should not share data, arguments, or interpretations from the manuscript without permission and should not delegate the review to others without prior approval from the editorial board.
4. Ethical Conduct: Reviewers must uphold the ethical standards of the journal, ensuring that their reviews are conducted with integrity and without bias.
Ethical Oversight
The journal follows strict ethical standards in all aspects of publication. Research involving human participants or animals must have received approval from an appropriate institutional ethics committee, and authors must provide documentation upon request. All submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism and research misconduct.
Handling of Academic Misconduct
The journal takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously, including plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabrication or falsification of data, image manipulation, undisclosed competing interests, and inappropriate authorship.
Where a concern is raised, whether before or after publication, the journal follows the COPE flowcharts. The process is as follows:
The concern is recorded and assessed by the Editor-in-Chief. Where the Editor-in-Chief has a competing interest in the matter, it is referred to a designated member of the Editorial Board and the recusal is recorded.
The corresponding author is informed of the concern and given a reasonable opportunity to respond in writing before any decision is taken.
Where the response does not resolve the concern, the journal may contact the authors' institution or funder and request an investigation. The journal does not conduct institutional investigations itself.
Once concluded, the journal takes one of the following actions: no action, publication of a correction, publication of an expression of concern, or retraction of the article.
Corrections, expressions of concern and retractions are published as separate, citable notices with their own DOI, linked in both directions to the original article. The original article is never removed or silently altered. A retraction notice states the reason for retraction, who is retracting the article, and whether the authors agree with the decision.
Allegations are treated confidentially. A correction or retraction is not in itself a finding of misconduct against any individual.
Complaints and Appeals
1. Complaints may relate to the editorial process (e.g., perceived bias, long delays, or improper behavior), publication ethics (e.g., plagiarism, data manipulation), or other concerns
related to the journal’s content or practices.
2. All complaints should be submitted in writing to the journal's editorial office via fce@cspub-hk.org. Each complaint will be acknowledged promptly and investigated
thoroughly, with respect for all parties involved. Outcomes will be communicated as soon as a conclusion is reached.
3. Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision should clearly state the grounds for appeal and provide any supporting evidence. Appeals must be submitted within 30 days of
receiving the decision.
Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
Discussions: Readers are welcome to submit comments or concerns regarding published articles. Valid issues may be addressed through letters, author responses, or editorial notes.
Corrections: If errors are found that do not affect the overall conclusions, a correction will be published and linked to the original article.
Retractions: In cases of serious issues such as misconduct or unreliable findings, the journal may issue a retraction or an expression of concern.