Gold Science and Technology always adhered to the purpose of “reporting the progress of science and technology, promoting academic exchanges, and serving the development of industry”.The editorial board of this journal is composed of excellent experts and scholars in the field of gold and rara metals in China, which ensures the development direction and academic level of Gold Science and Technology.Gold Science and Technology follows the academic publishing ethics of international publishing institutions and domestic publishing ethics-related institutions, we eliminate academic misconducts such as multiple submissions, plagiarism and forgery to ensure the scientificity, innovation and practicability of the paper.

The journal (including print and electronic editions, same below) and all contents of the website, including articles, pictures, photos, graphics, layout, and list of column names, classification, and their copyright or related rights are owned by their respective rights or corresponding rights holders. That is subject to China and China's accession to the International Convention on the protection of the law.

Author responsibilities

(1) The author’s contribution must be an original work, the content of the contribution has never been published in any form, and multiple submissions are prohibited. No plagiarism and plagiarism, cited views should clearly indicate the reference information. The data is true and reliable, non-deception, and strictly prevents academic misconduct such as forgery, tampering or plagiarism.

(2) State secrets and institutional business secrets shall not be involved in paper.

(3) It is not allowed to violate the signature rules of the paper. All the signed authors of the paper should review and agree to publish the paper in advance, and have the responsibility of informed consent to the content of the paper.The drafter of the paper must seek the signed author’s opinions on the full text of the paper in advance and obtain his signed consent. Every author who signs the paper must have a substantive academic contribution to the paper, and resolutely resists no substantive academic contributors to sign the paper. It is not allowed to change the author’s signature at will after the submission of the paper. For the those who help revise paper in the later period and others who participate in the research assistance but are not included as authors, they should be listed in the acknowledgement.

(4) 'Third parties' are not allowed to write papers on their behalf. Technologists should complete the thesis writing by themselves, and resolutely resist 'third parties' providing thesis writing services. 'Third parties' are not allowed to submit papers on their behalf. Sci-tech workers should learn and master the submission procedures of academic journals, complete the whole process of submitting papers and responding to review comments in person, and resolutely resist 'third parties' providing paper submission services. No 'third party' is allowed to modify the content of the paper. The author of the paper entrusts a 'third party' to carry out the language editing of the paper, which should be based on the original manuscript completed by the author, and is limited to the improvement of language e_x_p_r+e_s_s_i_o_n, and resolutely resist modifying the substantive content of the paper in the name of language editing.

(5) The research funding information should be stated in the manuscript. The listed funding projects should be consistent with the research direction of the paper, and the irrelevant funding projects should not be listed.

(6) It is not allowed to provide false peer reviewer information. If science and technology workers need to recommend peer reviewers to publish papers in academic journals, they should ensure that the information provided by the reviewer's name, contact information and other information is true and reliable, and resolutely resist any falsification in the peer review process.

Responsibilities of reviewers

(1) The evaluation of papers should be objective and fair, give clear opinions on the academic level of the paper and whether it meets the public publication standards, and avoid perfunctory or ambiguous review opinions.

(2) Respect the existence of different academic viewpoints, and do not publish rude, derogatory or unobjective comments; if serious academic misconduct is found in the paper, it should be truthfully reported to the editorial department.

(3) If you are not familiar with the object of review or the relevant research direction, you should truthfully inform the editorial department; for papers that have conflicts of interest or mutual benefits that hinder objective evaluation, you can avoid reviewing the manuscript.

(4) If you are invited to review a paper, it should be completed within the specified time, and the editorial department should be notified in time due to delays caused by objective factors.

Editor’s Code

(1) The editor should ensure the fairness of the initial review process of the manuscript, reasonably grasp the position of the journal’s publication, and reasonably select the manuscript. Efforts should be made to ensure that the received manuscripts are arranged for peer review and publication in a timely manner, and the timeliness of publication should be ensured for papers reported on important findings.

(2) Ensure timely publication; the report content is novel, scientific and reliable, and the publication of the frontier and hot research results of the subject is given priority.

(3) Do a good job in the detection of academic misconduct in the included manuscripts. Eliminate the publication of academic misconduct such as false, plagiarism, duplicate publication, third-party submission of manuscripts, and unreasonable signatures of manuscripts.

(4) Establish and maintain the peer reviewers database. When editing a manuscript for review, select appropriate reviewers without conflicts of interest to review the content of the manuscripts, objectively monitor the review performance of the reviewers, and record in detail the review speed and quality of the peer reviewers.

(5) Feedback expert review opinions to authors in a timely manner; support academic discussions and coordinate exchanges between authors and reviewers; under the review principle of 'blind review', the reviewer is obliged to keep the reviewer's information confidential; for rudeness or Defamatory reviews will not be adopted.

(6) Based on the importance, originality, clarity and relevance of the paper, the editor has the right to reject and accept the paper; allow the author to appeal the review decision.