In order to further strengthen the professional ethics of authors, editors and manuscript reviewers and resist academic misconduct, the editorial department of Computer Science(CS)  refers to “Ethical Guidelines for Scientific Journal Publishing”，and the guidelines formulated and published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), combined with the actual situation of this journal, to formulate the publication ethics guidelines for Computer Science.

I. Author Ethics

We expect all authors submitting to Computer Science (CS) to adhere to the following ethical guidelines:

1. Authors are responsible for the content of their papers, ensuring the authenticity and credibility of the submitted work, compliance with relevant laws and policies of China, and are obliged to provide original images, raw data, project approval documents, project names, and approval numbers upon request from the editorial office.

2. Upon submission, authors must submit a “Copyright Transfer and Authorization Form”. ensuring that the original work does not contain plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, improper attribution, multiple submissions, duplicate publication, or other forms of academic misconduct, and that the content does not involve confidential issues.

(1) Plagiarism: The act of improperly taking others' ideas, data, images, research methods, or textual expressions and publishing them under one's own name. This includes: (a) dea plagiarism, (b) data plagiarism, (c) image and audio/video plagiarism, (d) research (experimental) method plagiarism, (e) textual plagiarism, and (f) plagiarism of unpublished works.

(2) Fabrication: The act of inventing or fabricating data or facts, including: (a) Fabricating data or images not obtained from actual surveys or experiments; (b) Fabricating research methods or conclusions that do not match reality; (c) Fabricating supporting materials, annotations, or references for the paper; (d) Fabricating funding sources related to the research in the paper; (e) Fabricating reviewer information or review comments.

(3) Falsification: The act of deliberately altering data and facts to lose their authenticity, including: (a) Using modified, selected, deleted, or added raw survey records or data, altering the original intent; (b) Piecing together different images to create an unreal image; (c) Removing part of an image or adding fictional elements to change the interpretation; (d) Enhancing, blurring, or moving specific parts of an image to change the interpretation; (e) Altering the original intent of cited literature to benefit oneself.

(4) Attribution: In principle, authorship should be ordered according to the contribution, jointly determined by the authors, and confirmed at the time of submission. Only one corresponding author should be designated in the paper. After submission or publication, changes to authorship and affiliations are generally not permitted. Improper attribution includes: (a) Individuals who have not contributed substantially to the research in the author list; (b) Adding someone to the author list without their consent; (c) Author order not matching their actual contribution to the paper; (d) Providing false information about author titles, affiliations, education, research experience, etc.

(5) Multiple submissions: The act of submitting the same paper or paper with minor differences to two or more journals, or resubmitting to other journals within the agreed period, including: (a) Submitting the same paper to multiple journals simultaneously; (b) Resubmitting the paper to other journals during the agreed response period for the initial submission; (c) Submitting the paper to other journals before receiving a formal notice of rejection from the journal; (d) Submitting paper with minor differences to multiple journals simultaneously; (e) Slightly modifying the paper and submitting it to other journals before receiving a response from the initial submission or within the agreed period; (f) Resubmitting a previously published paper without any explanation or with minor modifications.

(6) Duplicate publication: The act of republishing one's own (or as one of the authors) previously published content without explanation, including: (a) Using content from one's own published literature in the paper without citation or explanation; (b) Extract multiple pieces from one's own published literature and piecing them together into a new paper for republication without explanation; (c) Failing to acknowledge the original publication in permitted secondary publications; (d) Repeatedly using data from a single survey in multiple papers without citation or explanation; (e) Publishing papers with similar or identical methods, conclusions, etc., based on the same research, each time with a small amount of additional data or material; (f) Co-authors publishing papers with significantly similar or identical data, methods, conclusions, etc., based on the same survey, experiment, or results.

(7) Other academic misconduct: Other forms of academic misconduct include: (a) Citing literature that was not actually referenced; (b) Marking citations from other literature as direct quotes; (c) Using copyrighted literature without permission; (d) Commissioning third-party organizations or individuals unrelated to the content of the paper to write, submit, or revise on one's behalf; (e) Publishing papers in violation of confidentiality agreements.

3. Conflict of interest declaration. Authors should declare any conflicts of interest upon submission, and if there is a conflict of interest, authors should disclose all financial interests that could potentially affect their research results (e.g.,commercial relationships with companies related to the research; any financial sponsorship from companies for experimental design and implementation, data processing, writing, and publication, etc.).

4. Respecting reviewer opinions. If authors disagree with the review comments or results, they may submit a written appeal to the editorial office, providing detailed explanations and justifications for each review comment.

5. After publication, if authors discover significant errors in their work, they should inform the journal's editorial office to coordinate handling and cooperate in retracting the manuscript or issuing“correction statement”.

II. Review Ethics

Computer Science (CS) strongly recommend that reviewers adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

We ask all peer reviewers to make every reasonable effort to adhere to the following ethical guidelines for the articles they have agreed to review.

1. Reviewers should assess manuscripts honestly, objectively, and fairly, upholding academic integrity and respecting academic freedom. They should not discriminate based on the author's country, institution, race, religion, political beliefs, gender, etc., and must maintain confidentiality before the work is publicly published, not disclosing the author's research content.

2. When a reviewer has a conflict of interest with the author (e.g., familial relationship, student-teacher relationship, alumni relationship, colleague relationship, competitive relationship), to ensure the fairness of the review, the reviewer should consult the editorial office for further advice in a timely manner.

3. When reviewers find that the research conducted by the author is similar to their own, the review should not contain unverified or malicious criticism or unfair content, avoiding unfounded accusations.

4. Reviewers should review manuscripts promptly according to the agreement. If they cannot complete the review on time, they should inform the editorial office and return the manuscript for review, recommending other reviewers if necessary. Without the consent of the editorial office, reviewers should not delegate the review to their students, colleagues, etc.

5.Reviewers must keep the peer review process confidential:information or correspondence about a manuscript should not be shared with anyone outside of the peer review process.

6.Reviewers must avoid making statements in their report which might be construed as impugning any person's reputation.

7.Reviewers should review manuscripts promptly according to the agreement. If they cannot complete the review on time, they should inform the editorial office and return the manuscript for review.

8.Reviewers should call to the journal editor's attention any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or submitted manuscripts of which they are aware.

III. Editorial Ethics

Computer Science(CS) refers editors to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

We ask all journal editors to make great effort to adhere to the following ethical guidelines.

1. Editors should handle each manuscript reasonably, impartially, and promptly, making acceptance or rejection decisions based on the paper's importance, originality, scientific nature, timeliness, readability, authenticity of research, and relevance to the journal, selecting outstanding papers that meet the journal's requirements for publication.

2. Editors must adhere to the principle of confidentiality, strictly keeping reviewer information confidential and maintaining the confidentiality of the author's research content.

3. Editors should not intervene in peer review due to personal interests, striving to ensure the independence of peer reviewers to guarantee the fairness and impartiality of peer review.

4. For reviewer recommendations from authors, editors should verify the authenticity of the reviewer's information and decide whether to use the recommended reviewer based on their research field and expertise, and whether there is a conflict of interest with the author. If an author requests to avoid a specific reviewer and the request is reasonable, the editor should respect it.

5. When selecting paper reviewers, editors should avoid reviewers with conflicts of interest, try to avoid being from the same unit as the author, and should not choose listed authors as reviewers.

6. If editors have a conflict of interest with authors (e.g., familial relationship, student-teacher relationship, alumni relationship, colleague relationship, competitive relationship), they should recuse themselves from handling the manuscript.

7. Editors should take author appeals seriously, organize collective discussions, or request reviewers to re-evaluate the manuscript.

8. Editors should remind authors of potential copyright and intellectual property issues that may arise after changing authorship, affiliations, and their order.

9. The editorial office may make textual modifications and deletions to manuscripts, and any content modifications should be approved by the author, fully respecting the author's viewpoints and writing style; editors should provide detailed revision suggestions or reasons for rejection whenever possible.

10. Editors should objectively state the situation of manuscript reviews and should not make personal evaluations or attacks on reviewers or authors.

IV.  Publication Ethics

1.Handling of Academic Misconduct

(1)All articles to be accepted will checked by editiors on AMLC of CNKI and WANFANG DATA platforms, if the repetition rate is equal to or higher than 20%, it will be regarded as academic plagiarism.For articles with plagiarism, the editorial department will strictly reject the papaer.And if the author is the first time to do academic misconduct, the editorial department will give a warning, if the author executes again, he/she will be included in the academic plagiarism blacklist,and the editorial department always refuses to process its submissions.

(2)For manuscripts that have been finalized and accepted for publication, the journal has the right to retract the manuscript and notify the author's institution and related journals if academic misconduct is discovered.

(3)For papers that have been published, if academic misconduct is discovered, the journal will retract the paper and issue a retraction.

2.Handling of Appeal

Authors may make an appeal if they disagree with the comment of the reviewers. The authors need to submit an appeal letter to the email of the journal editorial department, clearly stating the basis of the appeal. The appeal letter should include the following content.

(1) Reply to our journal's handling comments on the manuscript item by item and provide clear reasons for refutation, explaining why the manuscript should be reconsidered.

(2) If it is believed that the reviewer made an error in evaluating the manuscript, relevant material explanations should be provided.

(3)If it is believed that the reviewer may have a conflict of interest, relevant evidence should be attached.

After receiving the appeal, our journal will decide whether to arrange for a re review based on the reasonableness of the appeal content. The author's appeal will be notified by email . Each manuscript only accepts one appeal, and the decision on this appeal will be final. Do not accept repeated or unfounded appeals.

3. Correction and Withdrawal

(1) Correction

If errors are found in previously published works, especially when errors may affect the interpretation of certain data or content (excluding major errors in main viewpoints or conclusions), regardless of the reason for the error, this journal will promptly publish a correction notice and update it to the correct version on the journal website and the database platform.

 (2) Withdrawal

For published works, if legal infringement, defamation, or other legal restrictions are found, or if serious academic misconduct has been proven, our journal will promptly issue a withdrawal notice and withdraw it from the journal website and the database platform.