The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers
Ethical Policy Regarding Submission and Review of Papers
12th December 2006 (accepted by executive board)
27th March 2012 (accepted by executive board)

1. Responsibility of authors
1.1 Requirements of paper
A paper to be submitted must satisfy the terms and conditions stated in theinstructions to authors and must make a sufficient contribution to theadvancement and development of mechanical engineering and industry.
The submission of papers for commercial purposes is not permitted.
1.2 Coauthors
All researchers who significantly contributed to the completion of the paper andwho share responsibility for its contents may be included as coauthors; therange of coauthors is limited to such people. The inclusion of people merely forcourtesy and of those who cannot answer questions concerning the contents ofthe paper should be avoided. People who have passed away may be included asauthors if they satisfy the above conditions (their statement of agreement is notrequired). All authors must agree to the publication of the paper.
1.3 Duplicate submission
Papers that essentially include the same contents must not be submitted tomultiple journals that require the submitted papers to be original.
1.4 Provision of sufficient information
The authors must show their reasoning process by clearly indicating thebackground, including previous research, and the sources of informationnecessary for other researchers to reproduce, examine and evaluate the research.
In addition, the authors must carefully review other papers and indicate thesources when other papers are cited.
1.5 Caution when citing other papers
When information from other papers is cited, the authors must confirm that it isalso available to readers and pay attention to the existence of copyrights.
When the copyright of others is violated by the contents of a paper, the authors
shoulder full responsibility for the violation.
1.6 Caution when criticizing other papers
The authors are allowed to critically cite and describe papers of otherresearchers as part of their academic justification, but may not criticize a paper
or defame or cast aspersions on the research of others without a clear
foundation.
1.7 Prohibition of data fabrication, tampering, and plagiarism
The submitted paper must not contain any fabricated or manipulated data.
Moreover, it is prohibited to plagiarize data from other papers.
1.8 Handling of unpublished data of other researchers
Describing the published results, unpublished data, and ideas of otherresearchers without following the appropriate process or citing the sources isplagiarism and is prohibited.
1.9 Protection of human rights of respondents and subjects
In the research preceding the writing of a paper, the authors must not violate
the human rights or other rights of people who are the target of theinvestigation, and they must protect the life, health, privacy, and dignity ofsubjects in experiments.
Papers containing data obtained from experiments related to life and livingorganisms must contain statements describing the compliance with theDeclaration of Helsinki (a statement of ethical principles for medical research
involving human subjects), as well as the ethical codes, laws, and regulatory
criteria and standards, for example, “This study was approved by the ethicalcommittee or animal experiment committee of the institution”.
2 Responsibility of reviewers
2.1 Consciousness of reviewer’s role
The role of reviewers is extremely important in the judgment of whether a paper
is to be accepted for publication or rejected.

Reviewers must review any paper

impartially and promptly while considering the importance of their role.

2.2 Declining to review paper of stakeholders
The reviewer must promptly decline to review a paper in the case of a conflict ofinterest with the authors or their paper. The reviewer must also promptly
decline when he/she considers the completion of the review within thedetermined period to be impossible.
2.3 Ensuring objectivity of review
The review must be objective and logical from the viewpoints of usefulness forthe development of mechanical engineering and industry, originality, andreliability. The reviewer must strictly refrain from subjective and illogicaljudgments stemming from a personal perspective or personal feelings towards
the authors or their paper.
2.4 Consideration for the authors
The review comments must be logically described and expressed in a clear styleso as to be easily understood by the authors. When reviewing papers, thereviewer must take great care concerning the personal character andintellectual independence of the authors, and avoid descriptions that may
suggest a neglect of such considerations.

The reviewer must not criticize theauthors personally.
2.5 Confidentiality
The reviewer must not reveal to others the fact that he/she was requested toreview a paper or part of its contents.
2.6 Prohibition of utilization of papers for own benefit
The reviewer must not utilize the contents of a paper for his or her own benefit
until the paper has been published.
2.7 Report to editorial board
When the reviewer finds that the contents of a paper are or may be the same as
those of a paper already published, and that the paper contains or may containfabricated, tampered, or plagiarized data, he/she must promptly report thefinding to the editorial board members.

2.8 Review report (comments)
The reviewer must write the comments logically so that the members of theEditorial Committee and author(s) can understand them.

Particularly forpapers judged to be rejected, the reasons must be explained explicitly andappropriately.
3 Responsibility of Editorial Committee
3.1 Impartial management of Editorial Committee
3.1.1 The Editorial Committee must strive for impartial management to achieve
the purpose described in the preface of this policy.
The Editorial Committee must comply with ethical principles and make adecision on the acceptance/rejection of papers impartially and promptly tomaintain the quality of the journal.
3.1.2 The Editorial Committee must make a decision on the acceptance/rejectionof the submitted papers and judge their significance regardless of the race,religion, ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, occupation, affiliation, and politicalconviction of the author(s).
3.1.3

TheEditorialCommitteeisresponsiblefor

judging

theacceptance/rejection of papers on the basis of the reports from reviewers.
When the contents of a paper are considered to be unsuitable for the journal, theEditorial Committee can reject the paper without a review process.
3.1.4 A member of the Editorial Committee must not make a decision on theacceptance/rejection of papers of which he/she is the author or a coauthor.
3.1.5 If objective evidence of errors in the contents, conclusions, and referencesof a published paper is found, the Editorial Committee must notify the author(s),requesting a written response, and take appropriate measures, such as thepublication of errata.
3.2 Selection of reviewers
The reviewers must be selected impartially.

People who have a conflict ofinterest with the paper should not be selected as reviewers.
3.3 Confidentiality of members
The members of the Editorial Committee must not reveal to others information
regarding the review (excluding the case of asking other experts for advice).
Reviewers must report the names of anyone who were asked for advice

regarding the review.
3.4 Objection
When the authors of a rejected paper express their dissatisfaction with thereview result, the Editorial Committee must promptly examine the validity ofthe objection. The result of the examination is reported to the editorial executive
board under the name of the Editorial Committee, and the authors are also
informed. Appropriate measures must be taken when the objection is judged to
be valid.
3.5 Response to report of dishonesty in research
The Editorial Committee must promptly take appropriate measures uponreceiving reports of a suspicion of double submission, defamation or aspersions
regarding the citation, fabrication, tampering, or plagiarization of data, andother violations of the ethical policy, from the review committee members.