Publishing and Editorial Policies

1. Open Access Policy

China Scientific Research Publishing operates journals on a gold open-access basis and uses either the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) or the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) licence. Under these licences:

  • Authors keep full copyright.
  • All articles are immediately and permanently free to read and download.
  • Content may be reused, redistributed, or adapted without further permission (CC BY-NC 4.0 forbids commercial reuse).

Unless authors specify otherwise, the journal’s default licence applies; contributors should verify the specific policy of the journal they wish to submit to.

2. Peer Review Process

To safeguard scholarly excellence, the journals of CSRP follow several peer review processes as followed. Different journals follow their own peer-review procedures; please consult the “Peer review process” page of each journal for details.

2.1 Double-blind peer-review workflow (Reviewers and authors identity concealed from each other):

To maintain scholarly integrity, CSRP journals employ the following double-blind peer-review procedure (neither reviewers nor authors know one another’s identity):

  1. Upon receipt, in-house staff check the submission for completeness and originality (similarity screening). Papers that pass are assigned to a scientific editor—normally the Editor-in-Chief, or the Guest Editor for special issues; any editor with a conflict is replaced by an editorial-board member.
  2. The scientific editor decides whether the topic and apparent quality justify external review.
  3. Manuscripts deemed suitable are handed to an assigned editor (one of Editorial Board Members) who supervises the entire review.
  4. The assigned editor invites at least two external, independent reviewers. Authors may propose reviewers or request exclusions and must provide adequate contact information; the editor determines whether to follow these suggestions.
  5. Reviewers assess originality, methodology, contribution to the field, clarity, validity of conclusions, and appropriateness of references.
  6. Guided by the reviewers’ reports, the assigned editor recommends: accept, minor revision, major revision, resubmit for further review, or reject.
  7. The Editor-in-Chief reviews this recommendation and makes the final decision.
    • Minor revisions: 5-day time frame.
    • Major revisions: 14-day time frame.
    • Resubmitted manuscripts re-enter the same review loop until a final verdict is reached.
  8. Authors may appeal a rejection within four weeks; the appeal must present clear arguments and point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision on the appeal is final and concludes the matter.

 

2.2 Single-blind peer-review workflow (Reviewers identity concealed from authors):

  1. Submission

The manuscript is uploaded to the editorial system, where the authors’ information remains visible.

  1. Initial editorial screening

The editorial team verifies the manuscript’s completeness, alignment with the journal’s scope, compliance with ethical guidelines, and originality via a similarity check.

  1. Editorial assignment

An editor with no conflicts of interest is assigned to the manuscript. Reviewers are excluded if they are affiliated with the same institution as the authors, have collaborated with the authors recently, or have been co-authors with them in the past five years.

  1. Reviewer selection

A minimum of two independent subject-matter experts are selected. Reviewer invitations are sent only with the manuscript’s abstract (not the full text). Reviewers respond to invitations (accept or decline) through an online platform. Replacement reviewers are invited if initial candidates decline.

  1. Review period (4–6 weeks)

Reviewers gain access to the manuscript’s full text and any supplementary materials. They complete a structured evaluation covering the work’s novelty, methodology, scientific rigor, presentation quality, reference accuracy, and an overall recommendation.

  1. Editorial assessment

The assigned editor evaluates the reviewers’ feedback, checks for consistency across comments, and may consult the Editor-in-Chief for complex or contentious cases. Decisions fall into four categories: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject (with or without the option to transfer the manuscript to another journal).

  1. Author revision

Authors are given ≤10 days to address minor revisions and ≤30 days for major revisions. Extensions can be granted upon formal request. Authors must submit two documents: a letter responding to each reviewer comment point-by-point, and a manuscript file with tracked changes.

  1. Second round (if required)

Either the original reviewers or new experts assess whether the authors’ revisions adequately address the feedback. This cycle repeats until the editor deems the revisions satisfactory.

  1. Final decision

The Editor-in-Chief approves the final review decision, and the authors receive an official notification email.

  1. Post-acceptance

The manuscript proceeds through copy-editing, followed by a proof review by in-house editors and authors. It is then published online early, and later assigned to a specific journal issue.

  1. Audit trail

All communications, reviewers’ identities, and the reasoning behind each decision are stored for one year. These records are accessible to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) or for institutional investigations.

 

2.3 Open peer-review workflow

(Reviewers’ names and their reports are published together with the article; transparency is the standard practice.)

  1. Author opt-in

When submitting their manuscript, authors select the open review option and sign a consent form. If they decline, the process defaults to the standard double-blind review.

  1. Editorial screening

An editor checks if the manuscript fits the journal’s scope, includes required ethics statements, and passes a plagiarism scan. Only compliant manuscripts proceed to open review.

  1. Reviewer recruitment

The editor invites at least 3 external reviewers, clearly informing them that their names and full reports will be published. Prospective reviewers confirm their willingness to participate, disclose any conflicts of interest, and sign review contracts—all of which are stored for records.

      4.Open review phase (21-28 days)

Reviewers gain access to the manuscript and any supplementary data. They submit signed reports (either in a free-form or structured format). These reports are immediately visible to editors, and once completed, they become accessible to authors, too. Reviewers can post follow-up comments. The OJS system’s online dialogue box enables polite, moderated Q&A between authors and reviewers.

  1. Author response

Authors must upload two items within a specified timeframe: a point-by-point response or rebuttal to reviewer comments and a revised manuscript. The time frame is 30 days for major revisions and 14 days for minor revisions. All interactions are time-stamped and remain visible to the public.

  1. Editorial synthesis

The editor reviews the public discussion, may invite additional reviewers or request statistical checks if needed, and publishes a transparent decision letter that outlines the reasoning behind the outcome.

  1. Final decision & report polishing

If the manuscript is accepted, reviewers are given 48 hours to refine the language of their reports for public release. Offensive or defamatory content is removed, but the core substance of the reports is preserved.

  1. Publication

The final article, all signed reviewer reports, authors’ responses, and the editor’s synthesis are published together. They are made available under the Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 licence.

  1. Post-publication dialogue

Readers can submit moderated comments. Original reviewers are encouraged to join the discussion, though participation is not mandatory. If significant errors are found after publication, transparent corrections (corrigenda) or retractions are issued in line with COPE guidelines.

  1. Recognition & archiving

Completed reviews are assigned DOIs, allowing them to be cited as scholarly works. They are also automatically deposited in PubMed and CrossRef to ensure reviewers receive credit and maintain process transparency.

 

3. Authorship

In line with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations, only individuals who satisfy all four of the following criteria qualify for authorship:

  1. Making a significant contribution to the study—either by developing its concept or design, or by collecting, analysing, or interpreting the data;
  2. Drafting the manuscript, or thoroughly revising it to enhance its key intellectual content;
  3. Giving final approval to the specific version of the manuscript that will be published;
  4. Agreeing to take responsibility for the work. This includes ensuring any questions about the accuracy or integrity of any part of the study are properly investigated and resolved.

 

Individuals who do not meet all four conditions should not be listed as authors. Instead, their contributions may be recognized in an acknowledgments section.

Any use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools during manuscript preparation must be disclosed. This disclosure should specify both the nature of the AI assistance (e.g., writing support, grammar checks) and the extent of its use. AI tools used should also be mentioned in the acknowledgments.

Notably, AI cannot be used in sections that require human intellectual analysis. Examples of such sections include data interpretation and the drafting of conclusions.

Changes to Authorship

Any changes to the authorship list—including adding authors, removing authors, or rearranging the order of names—must be finalized before the manuscript receives formal acceptance.

Every author involved must provide written confirmation to the editorial office. This includes authors already on the list, as well as those being added or removed. The written confirmation must clearly explain the reason for the proposed change.

The authorship amendment will only take effect once the journal has given its explicit approval.

 

4. Conflict of Interest

Authors are obligated to reveal any potential competing interests, whether financial or non-financial. They must also avoid entering agreements—with either for-profit or non-profit sponsors—that would restrict their access to data, their ability to conduct independent analyses or interpretations, or their freedom to publish results as they see fit.

Reviewers and editors have similar disclosure obligations. They must declare any non-financial conflicts of interest, as well as any unpaid roles or relationships that could affect editorial decisions. Examples include voluntary positions in government or non-governmental organizations, involvement with advocacy or lobby groups, and unpaid advisory roles at commercial entities.

Additionally, reviewers and editors must disclose any personal or professional ties to the authors. For instance, if they are listed on the authors’ suggested reviewer exclusion list, this connection must be reported, as it could be seen as undermining their objectivity.

 

5. Publishing Ethics

China Scientific Research Publishing (CSRP) is dedicated to upholding the highest ethical standards. This commitment supports its core mission: publishing high-quality research and promoting open scientific communication on a global scale.

CSRP adheres to the ethical supervision guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These guidelines are applied to every phase of the publication process, as well as to the operations of its journals and the conduct of its editors and reviewers.

5.1 CSRP and its editors adhere to:

CSRP protects the privacy of all individuals contributing to its publications. It will not share personal information with third parties unless two conditions are met: first, explicit consent is obtained; or second, disclosure is necessary for standard publication procedures or required by law.

All claims of misconduct are addressed with strict seriousness (see the Misconduct Policy). A dedicated investigation panel will review tangible evidence and inform the authors of its findings. To challenge a decision, an appeal must be submitted within 14 days of the decision being issued. Failure to file an appeal within this period will result in the planned action being carried out. The panel’s decision on any appeals is final and binding.

Any complaints or concerns related to CSRP’s journals or editors can be sent directly to editorial_office@csrp-pub.com. These submissions will be processed in line with COPE guidelines.

5.2 Research involving human participants

Authors submitting research that includes human participants must confirm they have followed the Declaration of Helsinki, which is published by the World Medical Association.

Before starting their study, authors must obtain ethical approval from the relevant research ethics committee. The study must also remain under the supervision of this committee throughout its duration. When submitting the manuscript, authors are required to upload a statement that includes the committee’s name, approval reference number, and any other necessary details.

All study participants—or their legal guardians, if applicable—must provide written informed consent before being enrolled in the research. A copy of this consent document must be submitted along with the manuscript.

If informed consent is not required for the study, authors must specify the name of the ethics committee that approved this exemption and explain the reason for the waiver.

The privacy rights of human subjects must be strictly safeguarded. Identifiable information—such as full names, initials, contact information, and medical record numbers—must not be disclosed. The only exception is if omitting this information would make it impossible to interpret the study’s findings.

Additionally, authors must get written permission from each participant to publish any details related to them. For vulnerable populations, consent must be provided by a legal guardian. If the manuscript includes photographs that could reveal a participant’s identity (e.g., images showing their face), authors must obtain explicit consent from the subject for publication. For deceased individuals, consent must be obtained from their next of kin or legal representative.

5.3 Research involving animals

All research involving animals must obtain approval from an ethics committee before the study begins.

If national law does not require this type of review, authors must submit two items when sending their manuscript: an official waiver document issued by the ethics committee, plus the committee’s name and the specific reason for the exemption.

To maintain the highest professional standards and lower the chance of the manuscript being rejected during editorial review, authors are advised to refer to the guidance provided below:

 

CSRP evaluates comparative in-vivo studies using the ARRIVE Essential 10 compliance questionnaire; authors may also use it as a pre-submission checklist.

5.4 Ethical Oversight

Editor-in-Chief of each journal will supervise the entire publication process and ensure scientific integrity and impartiality. Articles must be published with the authorization of all the authors. Authors should adhere to the Patient Anonymity and Privacy Policy if their works involve human subjects. For vulnerable groups, written informed consent should be obtained so that the research trials could be published successfully. Any experiment that is contrary to animal welfare will likely be rejected.

 All the information of authors is private, and it will be removed for the further peer review process, and it is only for normal publishing needs other than business marketing practices, and of course, must not be leaked to third parties.

 

6. Advertising Policy

  • China Scientific Research Publishing (CSRP) retains the authority to approve or reject any advertisement submitted to its platforms.
  • Every advertisement must adhere to the laws and regulations of the country where it is displayed.
  • Advertisements must be easy to read, and the entity or individual behind the advertisement (the advertiser) must be clearly recognizable.
  • Advertising activities must never have an impact on journal content or the decisions made by the editorial team.
  • CSRP takes no responsibility for any losses that may result from advertisements published in its journals.

 For any advertising inquiries, please contact CSRP at editorial_office@csrp-pub.com.

 

7. Misconduct Policy

In accordance with COPE guidelines, CSRP will not tolerate any behaviour that could mislead the research community.

7.1 Plagiarism

Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable; this includes the reuse of one’s own previously published text without proper citation. All submissions are screened with Crossref Similarity Check powered by iThenticate. Papers that display excessive similarity to other sources may be rejected without external review.

7.2 Fabrication and Falsification

The creation or manipulation of data, images, or other findings with the intent to deceive is strictly prohibited. CSRP will reject any submission containing content that appears to be fabricated or falsified.

7.3 Duplicate Submission

Manuscripts that have already been published, or are under consideration elsewhere, will not be evaluated.

 

8. Correction, Retraction and Withdrawal

8.1 Corrections

Although authors are expected to deliver an error-free final manuscript, minor mistakes that do not alter the scientific conclusions may still appear. CSRP will publish a formal correction/erratum for such issues. Anyone—authors, readers, or editors—who notices an error should alert the editorial office of the journal concerned.

8.2 Retraction

Articles may be retracted when reliable evidence confirms any of the following (COPE) situations:

  • Invalid or unreliable results
  • Plagiarism or unattributed duplication of prior work
  • Redundant publication without proper notice, permission, or justification
  • Inclusion of data or images used without authorization
  • Copyright infringement, privacy violations, or other legal breaches
  • Unethical research conduct
  • Manipulation of the peer-review process
  • Undisclosed major conflicts of interest

A clearly labelled retraction notice stating the reason will be published, and the PDF of the original article will carry a “Retracted” watermark. Authors will be notified of the decision. Article processing charges already paid will not be refunded.

8.3 Withdrawal

Manuscripts may be withdrawn by authors at any point before acceptance, provided a valid reason is supplied. Withdrawal during peer review is discouraged, because editorial and reviewer resources have been expended; a withdrawal fee of USD 200 applies. Once the request is approved, the manuscript is removed from the journal’s system and the authors are informed.
Accepted or in-press articles may also be withdrawn for breaches of publication ethics, in which case the withdrawal follows procedures similar to those for retraction.

 

 

9. Copyright and Licence

Authors who publish in CRSP journals keep the copyright and instead give the publisher a non-exclusive licence to distribute the work. Unless another licence is specifically requested, every article is automatically released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0) or Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0). This licence lets readers download, share, and reuse the content for any purpose, provided that appropriate credit is given and the original source is cited.

Before submission, authors must carefully read the journal’s policies; if they do not state a preferred licence, they are deemed to have accepted the default CC BY 4.0 terms.

It is the authors’ duty to secure any additional permissions needed to reuse material—such as figures, tables, or schemes—that was originally published under a more restrictive licence, and to obtain this clearance prior to submission.

 

10. Privacy Statement

China Scientific Research Publishing (CSRP) is committed to safeguarding author privacy; our policy ensures that every collaboration remains confidential.

10.1 Personal data

We collect personal data when users register on a journal site (e.g., as authors), when the editorial office creates an account on their behalf (e.g., as reviewers), or when they correspond with us or subscribe to alerts. Details such as name, title, affiliation, country, and e-mail address are kept strictly confidential and used solely for manuscript-related processes. CSRP will never share this information with outside parties, and the same protection extends to every co-author.

When visitors browse the CSRP platform, we also gather technical data—log files, device type, IP address, visit time, and on-site interactions—to improve our services, compile article statistics, and promote the site.

Registered users may log in at any time to view or update their personal information, and they may request that CSRP delete their data.

10.2 External links

CSRP accepts no responsibility for the privacy practices or content of any third-party sites reached through links on our pages.

10.3 Contact us

Questions about this policy may be sent to editorial_office@csrp-pub.com.

 

11. Preprint Policy

CSRP permits authors to deposit preprints of their original research papers (and only this article type) on recognized community servers such as arXiv, bioRxiv, or PeerJ Preprint either before or at the same time they submit to a CSRP journal; authors keep the copyright in these preprints.

In the cover letter, authors must notify the editors that a preprint exists and supply any accession numbers or DOIs. Revised versions generated during peer review and the final accepted manuscript must not be uploaded to a preprint server.

After the paper is published, authors are encouraged to add a link from the preprint record to the journal website so readers can locate and cite the definitive version.

12. Disclaimer

Views, assertions, procedures, findings, and data presented in CSRP publications are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not represent the stance of CSRP or its editorial team. CSRP accepts no liability for any personal injury or property damage arising from concepts, techniques, or products mentioned in articles or advertisements.

13. Article Processing Charges (APCs)

CSRP publishes all articles under the open-access model: the final version is immediately and permanently free to read and download. To offset the costs of editorial evaluation, production, and online hosting, an Article Processing Charge is levied on authors once the manuscript is formally accepted and before publication.

Waivers and discounts
CSRP is committed to removing financial obstacles to the dissemination of research. Authors affiliated with institutions in low-income countries, or who encounter exceptional hardship, may request a full or partial waiver. Discounts may also be considered for outstanding submissions. Applications should be directed to the editorial office of the individual journal; decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. Granting or denying a waiver/discount will never influence the editorial evaluation of a manuscript.

 

14. Research Data Policy

Aligned with COPE’s recommendations on data transparency and reproducibility, CSRP urges authors to make the underlying data, code, and materials publicly accessible, to register clinical trials, and to follow recognized reporting standards. Datasets that are too large or complex for supplementary files should be deposited in trusted repositories. Authors who do so are asked to include a data-availability statement that specifies where the data can be found and any access restrictions imposed for privacy or biosecurity reasons. Sharing and re-using high-quality research data accelerates both scientific discovery and economic innovation.

14.1 Data-sharing practices

Shared data should conform to the FAIR Data Principles: every (meta)data set must carry a globally unique, persistent identifier, and sources must be cited accurately. Journals and institutions are expected to cooperate in monitoring the validity and credibility of the entire research cycle. Authors should foreground their own primary data and, whenever possible, release accompanying data sources at the earliest opportunity.

When data contain confidential, private, or personally identifiable information, authors must remove or mask all sensitive elements and share the data only under the mandatory disciplinary guidelines.

Unpublished data: if questions arise about the scientific rigor of a data set that has not yet been published, the journal will raise those concerns with the provider, ask the corresponding author for a written response and any supporting documentation, and determine whether other works are affected.

Published data: if a published data set linked to a manuscript is suspected to be unsound, the journal will notify any other journals that have published results derived from that data set, summarizing the problem and the steps taken. Authors must supply a satisfactory explanation or update. Should the flaws be serious enough to undermine the manuscript’s conclusions, the authors are expected to withdraw the paper; otherwise, the journal will reject it.

14.2 Data citation

Datasets held in external repositories should be acknowledged in the reference list. If a data set has already appeared in print, both the original paper and the repository entry must be cited. Editorial staff will verify and, if necessary, correct the citation before the article is published.

The minimum elements required (per DataCite) are:

  1. Creator(s)
  2. Year the data were released or published
  3. Title of the data set
  4. Repository or archive name
  5. Persistent identifier (e.g., DOI)

14.3 Data repositories

Authors should upload their data to a subject-specific community repository or to a general-purpose repository (e.g., an institutional, funder, or university archive open to its researchers) that meets disciplinary standards. To guarantee persistent linking, the publisher advises choosing a repository that assigns a DOI.

Curated registries such as FAIRsharing.org and re3data.org can help identify suitable archives. Widely used general repositories include: