To uphold the rigor, fairness, and credibility of academic publishing, the Editorial Board of Tropical Biology (Chinese and English) hereby solemnly pledges that the journal strictly adheres to the core principles and best practices established by international organizations such as the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) throughout the entire publication process. This policy applies to all parties interacting with the journal, including but not limited to authors, editors, reviewers, editorial board members, and readers. All submissions are deemed to have been read, understood, and agreed to comply with the full content of this statement.

1. Editor's Responsibilities and Obligations

1.1 Impartiality and Independence Editors shall make impartial decisions based on the manuscript's academic merit, originality, significance, and relevance to the journal's scope, free from influence by non-academic factors such as the author's nationality, affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs, or political stance. Editors must proactively disclose and recuse themselves from any conflicts of interest that may compromise their objective judgment (e.g., personal, professional, or financial relationships with the author).

1.2 Confidentiality Obligations: Editors and editorial staff must strictly maintain confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts, the peer review process, and all related communications. Prior to the decision to publish a manuscript, no information about the manuscript may be disclosed to any third party other than the reviewers and editorial board members.

1.3 The review process requires all submissions to undergo preliminary screening for originality through designated academic misconduct detection systems (China CNKI's "Academic Misconduct Literature Check", Wanfang Data's Similarity Detection Service", Daya's "Similarity Analysis", etc.).

The screened manuscripts undergo double-blind peer review arranged by the editors: reviewers submit the manuscripts anonymously, and authors submit their manuscripts anonymously.

Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least two (usually two to three) reviewers with expertise in the field.

Editors are responsible for carefully selecting reviewers, ensuring they possess the appropriate academic qualifications, and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Editors should make the final decision of acceptance, revision for re-review, or rejection by comprehensively considering the peer review comments, manuscript quality, and journal positioning, and promptly communicate clear and constructive reasons to the authors.

1.4 Academic Misconduct Investigation Editors are responsible for conducting preliminary investigations into allegations of academic misconduct in published or submitted manuscripts. The investigation shall adhere to the principles of rigor, confidentiality, and impartiality, and may involve communication with the author's institution. Based on the investigation results, editors will take appropriate measures in accordance with this policy.

2. Author's Responsibilities and Warranties

2.1 Originality and First Publication The author warrants that the submitted manuscript is an original work, not previously published in any language or format (including conference proceedings, theses, preprint platforms, etc., unless in compliance with the journal's preprint policy), and is not under peer review by any other journal. The manuscript must not contain any form of plagiarism (including self-plagiarism), data fabrication, alteration, or inappropriate image processing.

2.2 Authorship Attribution and Contribution The author must have made substantive academic contributions to the research work, including key aspects such as research conception, design, data acquisition and analysis, manuscript drafting or major revisions. Those who only provide financial support, administrative assistance, routine technical help, or general supervision are typically not eligible to be listed as authors, and their contributions may be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have reviewed and agreed to the final version of the manuscript and consented to submission. The author order should be confirmed by all authors prior to submission.

Disputes over authorship rights should be resolved prior to submission. If changes to the authors (adding, deleting, or altering the order) are required after submission, the corresponding author must submit a written statement signed by all authors along with reasonable justification to the editorial office.

2.3 Data and Citation Integrity: Authors must accurately present research data and must not selectively use data to mislead conclusions. Original research should be retained for verification purposes in accordance with field norms (typically for no less than 5 years).

All published works by others that have influenced the study must be properly cited, and the sources of data, images, ideas, or texts used in this study must be clearly labeled. Materials such as copyrighted charts and diagrams must not be used without permission.

Authors are encouraged to archive data supporting their findings in public databases when appropriate, and to provide access links or identifiers in their publications.

2.4 Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Authors must truthfully disclose any economic, professional, or personal conflicts of interest (e.g., employment relationships, advisory roles, equity holdings, patent applications, lecture remuneration, etc.) that may be considered to influence the research work or interpretation of results when submitting the manuscript. If no conflicts are identified, the author should declare "No conflict of interest."

2.5 Research ethics compliance for studies involving human subjects must specify whether approval has been obtained from the relevant Institutional Review Board (IRB) and whether informed consent has been obtained from the subjects or their guardians.

Studies involving animal experimentation must declare compliance with international, national, or institutional guidelines on the care and use of laboratory animals, and obtain relevant ethical review approval.

2.6 AI Usage Statement: If generative artificial intelligence (AIGC) or other AI tools (e.g., for data analysis, language polishing, or draft generation) were employed during research or manuscript writing, authors must provide transparent and specific disclosure in the manuscript (typically in the "Methods" or "Acknowledgments" sections), specifying the tool name, version, usage method, and scope of application.

The author is fully responsible for the AI-generated content, ensuring its accuracy and compliance, and conducting rigorous manual review, editing, and verification. The AI tool itself cannot be listed as the author.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities and Standards

3.1 Confidentiality and Intellectual Property Protection Reviewers must maintain complete confidentiality regarding the content of submitted manuscripts and the review process. They are prohibited from copying, using, or disclosing manuscript information to others, and must not seek personal benefits or exploit the authors' views during the review.

3.2 Objective and impartial review comments should be based on academic facts and evidence, focusing on the scientific validity, innovation, logical rigor, and clarity of expression of the manuscript. The comments should be professional and constructive, avoiding personal attacks or biased language.

3.3 Conflict of Interest Avoidance: If a reviewer identifies any competing, collaborative, or other relationships that may influence objective judgment with the manuscript's author, institution, or funding party, or if they deem their expertise unsuitable, they must immediately notify the editorial board and decline the review.

3.4 Timeliness and Professionalism Reviewers shall complete the evaluation within the agreed timeframe. If unable to meet the deadline, they shall promptly notify the editorial department. The review report shall be detailed and specific, clearly identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, areas requiring revisions, and determining whether there are any significant relevant references that have not been properly cited.

3.5 Academic misconduct reporting: During the peer review process, if any suspected academic misconduct such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate publication is identified, the author is obligated to submit specific concerns to the editorial board under confidentiality.

4. Retraction, Correction, and Editorial Notice

4.1 Retraction When a published article involves the following serious issues and is confirmed through investigation, the editorial board will issue a retraction notice:

a. Proven academic misconduct (e.g., data fabrication, severe plagiarism).

b. The study's conclusions are completely unreliable due to major errors (even if not intentional).

c. It constitutes repeated publication or copyright infringement, and cannot be resolved through other means.

d. The study itself has serious ethical issues (e.g., lack of ethical approval).

The retraction statement shall clearly specify the information of the retracted article (title, author, DOI), explicitly state the reasons for retraction, and link to all electronic versions of the original article whenever possible to ensure transparency in academic records.

4.2 Correction of minor errors in published articles that do not affect the overall conclusions and credibility (such as typographical errors, individual data errors, incorrect chart labeling, or omission of author contributions) will be addressed by the editorial board through a correction statement.

4.3 Expression of Concern When significant doubts arise regarding the reliability of published content, and when investigations (e.g., by the author's institution) are complex or time-consuming, the editorial team may issue an "Expression of Concern" to alert readers until the investigation concludes and a final decision is made.

5. Academic Misconduct Handling

Upon receiving a report of suspected academic misconduct, the editorial board will initiate a preliminary assessment.

If the preliminary evidence is established, the editorial office will contact the corresponding author and request them to provide explanations and evidence within the specified period.

Depending on the nature of the issue and the author's response, the editorial board may conduct an in-depth investigation independently or contact and assist the ethics committee of the author's institution to carry out the investigation.

Based on the final investigation results, the editorial board will take corresponding actions, including but not limited to: rejection of manuscripts, retraction of published articles, prohibition of relevant authors from submitting articles to this journal for a specified period (typically 1-5 years), notification to the authors' institutions, and notification to relevant databases and abstracting agencies.

All decisions will be documented in writing and the right to appeal will be given to the concerned parties.

This "Publication Ethics Policy" is formulated and interpreted by the Editorial Board of Acta Tropicalis Sinica (Chinese and English). The Editorial Board reserves the right to revise this policy in accordance with the development of publication ethics practices, and the revised content will be published on the journal's website.